Jul 26, 2016 - Behavioural neuroscience (e.g. sleep, consciousness, handedness). LS5_9. Systems neuroscience. LS5_10 Neu
European Research Council (ERC) Frontier Research Grants Information for Applicants to the Starting and Consolidator Grant 2017 Calls
Version 3.0 11 November 2016
1
Purpose of this document This document provides practical information to potential applicants in preparing and submitting an application for an ERC Starting or Consolidator Grant. The document is divided into two parts: 1: Applying for an ERC Grant 2: Annexes The present document is based on the legal documents setting the rules and conditions for the ERC frontier research grants, in particular the ERC Work Programme 20171, the revised ERC Rules for the submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures relevant to the Specific Programme of H2020 – the Framework programme for Research and Innovation (20142020)2 (hereinafter ERC Rules for Submission), and the ERC Model Grant Agreement. This document does not supersede the afore-mentioned documents, which are legally binding. Should there be any discrepancies between the aforementioned legal documents and this document, the former will prevail. The European Commission, the ERC Executive Agency or any person or body acting on their behalf cannot be held responsible for the use made of this document. This ‘Information for Applicants’ document may be further modified based on the experiences gained from preceding calls for proposals, on changes applied to the frontier research grants and the submission processes.
Note: As with other parts of the EU's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, National Contact Points (ERC NCPs) have been set up across Europe3 by the national governments to provide information and personalised support to ERC applicants in their native language. The mission of the ERC NCPs is to raise awareness, inform and advise on ERC funding opportunities as well as to support potential applicants in the preparation, submission and follow-up of ERC grant applications. For details on the ERC NCP in your country please consult the ERC website at http://erc.europa.eu/national-contact-points or the Participant Portal at https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/support/national_contact_points.html
Changes to the previous versions 1.0 and 2.0 of this document (released on 26th July and 14th October 2016): 1. A reminder to applicants never to contact an ERC expert about the peer review evaluation (according section 3.2 of the ERC Rules for Submission) has been inserted on page 9. 2. A notice that the ERC panel members are acting as generalists within their field (p 24). 3. A warning of potential problems saving data from the electronic submission form when working off-line (p 32). 4. A highlight of the importance of testing the system set-up with different browsers and security settings and emphasizing the importance for applicants to contact the SEP service desk well in advance if problems with the IT setup occurs (pp 13, 31, 33 and 38). 5. Correction of the text related to extension of the eligibility window for clinical training after an MD or PhD award (p 61).
1
European Commission C(2016)4616 of 25 July 2016. C(2015)4975 of 23 July 2015. 3 This applies to EU Member States and Associated Countries. Some other countries also provide this service. 2
2
Highlights of important new features related to proposal submission and evaluation for the ERC Starting and Consolidator Grant 2017 calls Restrictions on applications will apply to the 2017 calls based on the outcome of the evaluation of previous calls – see ‘Restrictions on submission of proposals’ below. NB Principal Investigators whose proposal was evaluated as category B at step 2 in the ERC Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programme 2016 will not be subject to restrictions in calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2017. Slight revision to a few panel titles and keywords in the PE8, LS7, LS8 and LS9 panels – see Annex I to this document. For the first time under Horizon 2020, beneficiaries of ERC frontier research grants funded under the ERC Work Programme 2017 will automatically be covered by the provisions on research data sharing unless they specifically decide to opt-out – see section on How to complete the grant application under ‘Open Research Data Pilot in Horizon 2020’ below.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 2 1: APPLYING FOR AN ERC STARTING OR CONSOLIDATOR GRANT ..................................................................... 5 1.1
PREPARING AND SUBMITTING AN ERC STARTING OR CONSOLIDATOR GRANT APPLICATION ............ 6 1.1.1 Objectives and principles of ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants 2017 .......................................... 6 1.1.2 How to complete the grant application ........................................................................................... 12 1.1.2.1 Completing the online administrative Proposal Submission Forms ............................................ 12 1.1.2.2 Instructions for completing 'Part B' of the proposal .................................................................... 24 1.1.2.3 Supporting Documentation ......................................................................................................... 29 1.1.3 How to submit the grant application ............................................................................................... 31 1.1.3.1 Modifying or withdrawing a proposal ......................................................................................... 38 1.2 EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF GRANT PROPOSALS...................................................................... 40 1.2.1 Eligibility Check ................................................................................................................................. 40 1.2.2 Peer review evaluation of proposals ................................................................................................ 40 1.2.2.1 The ERC evaluation panels........................................................................................................... 41 1.2.3 Ethics Review .................................................................................................................................... 42 1.2.4 Outcome of evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 43 1.2.5 Feedback to applicants ..................................................................................................................... 44 1.2.5.1 Evaluation Review Procedure ...................................................................................................... 44 2: ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................... 46 ANNEX 1: ERC PEER REVIEW EVALUATION PANELS (ERC PANELS) .................................................................. 47 Social Sciences & Humanities ......................................................................................................................... 47 Physical Sciences & Engineering ..................................................................................................................... 49 Life Sciences .................................................................................................................................................... 53 ANNEX 2: COMMITMENT OF THE HOST INSTITUTION .................................................................................... 57 ANNEX 3: PHD AND EQUIVALENT DOCTORAL DEGREES ................................................................................. 60 ANNEX 4: SPECIFIC GUIDANCE RELATED TO ETHICS ........................................................................................ 63
4
1: Applying for an ERC Starting or Consolidator Grant
5
1.1 Preparing and submitting an ERC Starting or Consolidator Grant application 1.1.1 Objectives and principles of ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants 2017 The ERC Work Programme 2017 sets out the objectives and principles of ERC funding. ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants are designed to support excellent Principal Investigators (PIs) at the career stage at which they are starting or consolidating their own independent research team or programme. Principal Investigators must demonstrate the ground-breaking nature, ambition and feasibility of their scientific proposal. ERC grants are open to researchers of any nationality who intend to conduct their research activity in any EU Member State4 or Associated Country5. The ERC's frontier research grants operate on a 'bottom-up' basis without predetermined priorities. Applications can be made in any field of research with particular emphasis on the frontiers of science, scholarship and engineering6. In particular, proposals of an interdisciplinary nature, which cross the boundaries between different fields of research, pioneering proposals addressing new and emerging fields of research or proposals introducing unconventional, innovative approaches and scientific inventions are encouraged. The calls 'ERC-2017-STG' and 'ERC-2017-COG' consist of one call each with a single deadline applying to the three main research domains: Physical Sciences & Engineering (Panels PE1-PE10), Life Sciences (Panels LS1-LS9), and Social Sciences & Humanities (Panels SH1 – SH6). The guiding principles of the ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants are highlighted in Box 1. Box 1: Guiding principles of the ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants Scientific excellence is the sole criterion on the basis of which ERC frontier research grants are awarded. Applications can be made in any field of research. Individual research teams led by a single PI can apply for funding. Principal Investigators from anywhere in the world can apply for an ERC grant. The ERC's frontier research grants aim to empower individual researchers and provide the best settings to foster their creativity. Grants are awarded to the host institution that engages and hosts the PI. The PI will be employed by the host institution. Host institutions must provide conditions for the PI to independently direct the research and manage its funding. Host institutions must be established in an EU Member State or Associated Country.
4
The EU Member States are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom. 5 Please consult the link for the list of Associated Countries. Please also check the online manual for up-to-date information on the current position for Associated Countries. 6 Research proposals within the scope of Annex I of the EURATOM Treaty directed toward nuclear energy applications should be submitted to relevant calls under the Research and training programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-18) complementing Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Council Regulation (EURATOM) No 1314/2013, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 948).
6
The ERC supports projects, which are carried out by individual research teams headed by a single Principal Investigator (PI) of any nationality. These teams may be of national or trans-national character. With the focus on the PI, the concept of individual team is fundamentally different from that of a traditional 'network' or 'research consortium'; proposals of the latter type should not be submitted to the ERC. In certain fields (e.g. in the humanities and mathematics), where research is often performed individually, the 'team' may consist solely of the Principal Investigator. The PI does not need to be employed by the host institution at the time when the proposal is submitted. If not already employed by the host institution, the PI must be engaged by the latter at least for the duration of the grant7. With the support of the host institution, successful PIs will be expected to lead their individual teams. The PI must be strongly committed to the project and devote a significant amount of time to it. Principal Investigators funded through the ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants will be expected to spend a minimum 50% for Starting Grants and 40% for Consolidator Grants of their total working time on the ERC project and a minimum of 50% of their total working time in an EU Member State or Associated Country8.
Size of ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants Starting Grants can be up to a maximum of EUR 1 500 000 for a period of 5 years (pro rata for projects of shorter duration). Consolidator Grants can be up to a maximum of EUR 2 000 000 for a period of 5 years (pro rata for projects of shorter duration). However, up to an additional EUR 500 000 for Starting Grants and EUR 750 000 for Consolidator Grants can be requested in the proposal to cover: (a) eligible "start-up" costs for Principal Investigators moving to the EU or an Associated Country from elsewhere as a consequence of receiving the ERC grant and/or (b) the purchase of major equipment and/or (c) access to large facilities9. The European Union financial contribution will take the form of the reimbursement of up to 100% of the total eligible and approved direct costs and of a flat-rate financing of indirect costs corresponding to 25%10 of the total eligible direct costs11.
7
Normally the Principal Investigator will be employed by the host institution, but cases where, for duly justified reasons, the Principal Investigator's employer cannot become the host institution, or where the Principal Investigator is self-employed, can be accommodated. The specific conditions of engagement will be subject to clarification and approval during the granting procedure or during the amendment procedure for a change of host institution. 8 A specification about the PI's commitment to the project should be provided in Part B2 of the research proposal. 9 As any additional funding is to cover major one-off costs it is not subject to pro-rata reduction for projects of shorter duration. All funding requested is assessed during evaluation. 10 In H2020 it is not possible to ask lower percentages for the indirect costs. 11 Excluding the direct costs for subcontracting and the costs of resources made available by third parties, which are not used on the premises of the host institution.
7
Profile of the ERC Starting and Consolidator Grant Principal Investigator
Specific Eligibility Criteria
Starting Grant
Consolidator Grant
The Principal Investigator shall have been awarded his/her first PhD ≥ 2 and ≤ 7 years prior to 1 January 2017
The Principal Investigator shall have been awarded his/her first PhD > 7 and ≤ 12 years prior to 1 January 2017
Cut-off dates: PhD from 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2015 (inclusive)
Cut-off dates: PhD awarded from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2009 (inclusive)
The effective elapsed time since the award of the first PhD taken into consideration for eligibility can be reduced in certain properly documented circumstances where they apply to the Principal Investigator (please see ERC Work Programme 2017 under the heading 'Eligible Principal Investigator' for further details). A competitive Starting Grant Principal Investigator must have already shown the potential for research independence and evidence of maturity, for example by having produced at least one important publication as main author or without the participation of their PhD supervisor. A competitive Consolidator Grant Principal Investigator must have already shown research independence and evidence of maturity, for example by having produced several important publications as main author or without the participation of their PhD supervisor. Principal Investigators should also be able to demonstrate a promising track record of early achievements appropriate to their research field and career stage, including significant publications (as main author) in major international peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journals, or in the leading international peer-reviewed journals of their respective field. They may also demonstrate a record of invited presentations in well-established international conferences, granted patents, awards, prizes etc. For further information please see the ERC Work Programme 2017 and the ‘Instructions for completing Part B of the proposal’ in this document. Applicants are encouraged to evaluate their track-record and leadership potential against the abovementioned benchmarks that have been adopted by the Scientific Council, in order to decide for themselves their likelihood for success, thus avoiding investing effort in proposals that are very unlikely to succeed.
Eligible Host Institutions The host institution must engage the Principal Investigator for at least the duration of the project, as defined in the grant agreement. It must either be established in an EU Member State or Associated Country as a legal entity created under national law, or it may be an International European Interest Organisation (such as CERN, EMBL, etc.), the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) or any other entity created under EU law. Any type of legal entity, public or private, including universities, research organisations and undertakings can host Principal Investigators and their teams. The ERC welcomes applications from Principal Investigators hosted by private for-profit research centres, including industrial laboratories.
8
Ethical Issues Some frontier research activities and methodologies may have ethical implications or may raise questions which will require sound ethical assessment in order to ensure that research supported by an ERC grant respects the fundamental ethical principles (see point 1.2.3 and Annex 4 to this document).
Research Integrity Cases of scientific misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or misrepresentation of data will be considered as breaches of fundamental ethical principles and may result in the rejection of proposals in accordance with section 3.11 of the ERC Rules for Submission. Plagiarism detection software may be used to analyse proposals submitted to the ERC.
No Contact with Peer Reviewers Please, note that in accordance with section 3.2 of the ERC Rules for Submission, any direct or indirect contact about the peer review evaluation of an ERC call between the PI and/or any team member and/or any person linked to the applicant legal entity submitting a proposal under the same call and any independent expert involved in that peer review evaluation is strictly forbidden. Any such contact may result in the decision of the ERCEA to exclude the proposal concerned from the call in question.
Restrictions on submissions of proposals The restrictions for submission under the ERC Work Programme 2017 are set out below. The Scientific Council may decide in the light of experience that different restrictions will apply in subsequent years. The year of an ERC call for proposals refers to the Work Programme under which the call was made and can be established by its call identifier. A 2015 ERC call for proposals is therefore one that was made under the Work Programme 2015 and will have 2015 in the call identifier (for example ERC2015-StG). Ineligible or withdrawn proposals do not count against any of the following restrictions (please consult the ERC Rules for Submission, section 2.2). A Principal Investigator may submit proposals to different ERC frontier research grant calls made under the same Work Programme, but only the first eligible proposal will be evaluated. No restrictions apply
A Principal Investigator whose proposal was evaluated as category A in the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programme 2016 may submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2017.
A Principal Investigator whose proposal was evaluated as category B at step 2 in the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programme 2016 may submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2017.
9
Restrictions apply
A Principal Investigator whose proposal was evaluated as category B at step 1 in the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programme 2016 may not submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2017.
A Principal Investigator whose proposal was evaluated as category C in the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals under Work Programmes 2015 or 2016 may not submit a proposal to the Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2017.
A Principal Investigator whose proposal was rejected on the grounds of a breach of research integrity in the calls for proposals under Work Programmes 2015 or 2016 may not submit a proposal to the calls for proposals made under Work Programme 2017.
A researcher may participate as Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator12 in only one ERC frontier research project at any one time13.
A researcher participating as Principal Investigator in an ERC frontier research project may not submit a proposal for another ERC frontier research grant, unless the existing project ends14 no more than two years after the call deadline.
A Principal Investigator who is a serving Panel Member for a 2017 ERC call or who served as a Panel Member for a 2015 ERC call may not apply to a 2017 ERC call for the same type of grant15.
12
Projects with Co-Investigators were supported under the Advanced Grant in ERC Work Programmes from 2008 – 2011. A Co-Investigator was a team-member of the Principal Investigator with particular research responsibilities. 13 A new frontier research project can only start after the duration of the project fixed in a previous frontier research grant agreement has ended. 14 According to the duration of the project fixed in the previous frontier research grant agreement. 15 The members of the ERC panels alternate to allow panel members to apply to the ERC calls in alternate years.
10
The restrictions related to the outcome of the evaluation in previous calls are designed to allow unsuccessful Principal Investigators the time necessary to develop a stronger proposal. Resubmission restrictions Proposal evaluated under Work Programme
Evaluation STEP
1 2015 2 1 2016 2
Evaluation SCORE
Can the PI resubmit in 2017?
B
yes
C
no
A
yes
B
yes
B
no
C
no
A
yes
B
yes
Preparing and submitting an ERC Starting or Consolidator Grant application16 ERC grant applications can be submitted only in response to a 'call for proposals'. Calls announced in the ERC Work Programme 2017 are published on the ERC website17, the Research and Innovation Participant Portal18, and in the Official Journal of the European Union19.
A single submission deadline is foreseen for all scientific domains: ERC-2017-STG: 18 October 2016, 17.00.00 (Brussels local time) ERC-2017-COG: 9 February 2017, 17.00.00 (Brussels local time)
Please note that the foreseen submission deadlines could be modified after the publication of the calls. You are therefore invited to periodically consult the Research and Innovation Participant Portal17 where any modifications of the submission deadlines are indicated.
16
The working language of the ERC evaluation panels is English. Please note that accordingly the evaluation reports will be available in English only. If the proposal is not in English, a translation of the full proposal would be of assistance to the experts. An English translation of the abstract must be included in the proposal. 17 http://erc.europa.eu/ 18 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal 19 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en
11
1.1.2 How to complete the grant application 1.1.2.1 Completing the online administrative Proposal Submission Forms20 Proposals must be submitted electronically via the web-based Participant Portal Submission Service (PPSS)21. Please read point 1.1.3 of this document before starting the pre-registration process. In the submission forms, the PI is asked to fill in the administrative data online that will be used in the evaluation and further processing of the proposal. The administrative forms are an integral part of the proposal22 and are divided in 5 Sections: 1 – General Information 2 – Administrative data of participating organisations 3 – Budget 4 – Ethics 5 – Call specific questions Section 1 – General Information contains information about the research proposal, including an abstract of the project proposal and the chosen ERC panel for evaluation. The PI must indicate the most relevant ERC panel for evaluation of their proposal and choose one or more ERC keywords related to the research fields involved from a drop-down menu (see Annex 1 to this document for the full list of ERC keywords). Furthermore, section 1 contains declarations related to the proposal and the participation in H2020. Section 2 – Administrative data of participating organisations contains information about the PI and the PI's host institution23. Section 3 – Budget contains information about the total estimated project costs and the requested EU contribution. The amount given in the online financial form (section 3) must correspond exactly to the information provided in the research proposal text (Part B2, section c, resources). Section 4 – Ethics serves to identify any ethical aspects of the proposed work. This table has to be completed even if there are no issues (simply confirm that none of the ethical issues apply to the proposal). Please note that, in case you answer YES to any of the questions, you are requested to provide an Ethics Self-Assessment and additional ethics documentation – if applicable, as detailed in the Ethics Issues Table checklist (in Annex 4 to this document). Section 5 – Call specific questions contains information on the academic training of the PI, as well as declarations related to eligibility, and permission statements on data-related questions (the datarelated consents are entirely voluntary). Also, in section 5, as established in section 3.3 of the ERC Rules for Submission, applicants submitting a proposal may request that up to three specific persons would not act as peer reviewers in the evaluation of their proposal. 20
The Specific Privacy Statement on the protection of personal data related to the processing operations of applicants' and beneficiaries' data: proposal evaluation, grant management and follow-up in H2020 is available through the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/support/legal_notice/h2020-sspsgrants_en.pdf. Applicants are reminded not to provide irrelevant and excessive data (mainly with regards to health data). 21 For General user guidance please refer to the User Guide of the Submission Service. The H2020 Online Manual (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/applyingfor-funding/submit-proposals_en.htm) describes the standard process of proposal submission. The 'IT HOW TO' wiki site provides an online IT manual with screenshots. 22 Details of the scientific project are described in the research proposal, Parts B1 and B2. 23 The filling of additional section 2 forms, corresponding to other beneficiaries e.g. institutions of team members ('additional participants'), may be necessary.
12
The following notes are for information only. They should assist you in completing the online proposal submission forms. Online guidance will also be available. The precise questions and options presented in PPSS may differ slightly from these below. Please regularly consult the Research and Innovation Participant Portal call page for updated information. For any difficulty encountered, please, contact the PPSS Service Desk in due time before the call deadline by using the Research Enquiry Service http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=enquiries or the Participant Portal IT Helpdesk http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/api/contact/index.html. You may also contact the SEP helpdesk directly on +32 (2) 29 92222 to receive immediate assistance on any issue with the submission system.
1 – General information (notes for information only) * Failure to respond to the mandatory fields below will block the submission.
Topic
Call identifier
Type of Action
Proposal Number
Proposal Acronym*
[pre-filled] Chosen upfront on the participant portal call page, either ERC-2017-STG or ERC-2017-COG. [pre-filled] The call identifier is the reference number given in the call or part of the call you are applying for, as indicated in the publication of the call in the Research and Innovation Participant Portal – H2020 Calls. A call identifier looks like this: ERC-2017-STG or ERC-2017-COG. [pre-filled] Definition for 'type of action', either ERC-STG or ERC-COG. [pre-filled]
[pre-filled but editable] The short title or acronym will be used to identify your proposal efficiently in this call. It should be of no more than 20 characters (use standard alphabet and numbers only; no spaces, symbols or special characters please). The same acronym should appear on each page of the research proposal.
Proposal Title (max. 200 characters) (non-confidential information)*
Duration in Months*
The title should be no longer than 200 characters (with spaces) and should be understandable to the non-specialist in your field. In order to best review your application, your agreement is needed below so that this nonconfidential title can be used when contacting potential reviewers, should your proposal be retained for step 2 of the evaluation process. The estimated duration of the project in full months (1-60 months).
13
[drop-down menu] Please choose the primary ERC review panel ('Targeted Review Panel') by which you would like your proposal to be evaluated. The full list of ERC review panels is in Annex 1 to the ERC Work Programme 2017. Primary ERC Review Panel*
It is the PI's responsibility to choose the most relevant ERC panel ('primary review panel') for the evaluation of the proposed research. The initial allocation of the proposals to the various panels will be based on the expressed preference of the PI. In the case of cross-panel/cross-domain proposals the PI may indicate a 'secondary review panel'. The primary panel will then decide whether the proposal is indeed cross-panel or even cross-domain and if its evaluation requires expertise from other panels. Despite the initial allocation being based on the preference of the PI, when necessary due to the expertise required for the evaluation, proposals may be reallocated to different panels during the course of the peer review evaluation.
Secondary ERC Review Panel (if applicable)
[drop-down menu] You can choose a secondary ERC review panel that you consider most relevant to your proposal. The choice of a 'Secondary ERC Review Panel' is optional. The full list of ERC review panels is in Annex 1 to the ERC Work Programme 2017.
ERC Keyword 1 (please choose this keyword from those linked to the Primary ERC Review Panel)*
[drop-down menu] Please select ERC keywords (as indicated in the ERC review panel list - Annex 1 to this document) that best characterise the subject of your proposal. As first keyword please choose one which is linked to the Primary Review Panel.
ERC Keywords 2, 3, 4
[drop-down menu] You can select additional ERC keywords (as indicated in the ERC review panel list - Annex 1 to this document) that best characterise the subject of your proposal. You don't need to limit your choice of ERC keywords to your choice of specific review panel(s). Keywords 2, 3 and 4 are optional.
Free Keywords
Abstract (min.100/ max. 2000 char.) (non-confidential information)*
In addition, please enter free text keywords that you consider best characterise the scope of your research proposal. The choice of keywords should take into account any multi-disciplinary aspects of the proposal. You can also use keywords from other specific classification systems, provided that the actual describing text is included. For example, applicants to the 'PE1 - Mathematics' panel may want to use the Mathematics Subject Classification system, and can then enter a text like 'MSC2010: 51Hxx Topological geometry'. There is a limit of 200 characters. The abstract should, at a glance, provide the reader with a clear understanding of the objectives of the research proposal and how they will be achieved. The abstract will be used as the short description of your research proposal in the evaluation process and in communications to contact in particular the ERC experts and/or inform the Commission and/or the programme management committees and/or relevant national funding agencies (see also Data-Related Questions below.). It must therefore be short and precise and should not contain confidential information. Please use plain typed text, avoiding formulae and other special characters. The abstract must be written in English. There is a limit of 2000 characters (spaces and line breaks included).
In order to best review your application, do you agree that the above non-confidential proposal title and abstract can be used, without disclosing your identity, when contacting potential reviewers?*
[Yes/No] – In the course of the evaluation procedure, the non-confidential title and abstract of your proposal may be communicated to potential remote ERC experts, in particular should your proposal be retained for step 2 of the evaluation process. Please specify your agreement or disagreement.
14
Has this proposal (or a very similar one) been previously submitted in response to a call for th proposals under the 7 Framework Programme, Horizon 2020 or any other EU programme(s)?
[Yes/No] – Please give the proposal reference or contract number if the reference is known.
Failure to respond to the first question below will block the submission. Please select the applicable response in point 4. Declarations 1) The Principal Investigator declares to have the explicit consent of all applicants on their participation and on the content of this proposal.* 2) The Principal Investigator declares that the information contained in this proposal is correct and complete. 3) The Principal Investigator declares that this proposal complies with ethical principles (including the highest standards of research integrity — as set out, for instance, in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity — and including, in particular, avoiding fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other research misconduct). 4) The Principal Investigator hereby declares that: - in case of multiple participants in the proposal, the coordinator has carried out the self-check of the financial capacity of the organisation on https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal4/desktop/en/ organisations/lfv.html or to be covered by a financial viability check in an EU project for the last closed financial year. Where the result was “weak” or “insufficient”, the coordinator confirms being aware of the measures that may be imposed in accordance with the H2020 Grants Manual (Chapter on Financial capacity check).
[Yes/No] [Yes/No]
[Yes/No]
[Yes/No] – Please tick the one declaration (out of three options) that is applicable to your proposal.
- in case of multiple participants in the proposal, the coordinator is exempt from the financial capacity check being a public body including international organisations, higher or secondary education establishment or a legal entity, whose viability is guaranteed by a Member State or associated country, as defined in the H2020 Grants Manual (Chapter on Financial capacity check).
- in case of a sole participant in the proposal, the applicant is exempt from the financial capacity check.
5) The Principal Investigator hereby declares that each applicant has confirmed to have the financial and operational capacity to carry out the proposed action. Where the proposal is to be retained for EU funding, each beneficiary applicant will be required to present a formal declaration in this respect.
15
[Yes/No] – The Principal Investigator is only responsible for the correctness of the information relating to his/her own organisation. Each applicant remains responsible for the correctness of the information related to him and declared above. Where the proposal is to be retained for EU funding, the coordinator and each beneficiary applicant will be required to present a formal declaration in this respect.
2 – Administrative data of participating organisations (notes for information only) The first sub-section lists the participating organisations. The first form is given for the host institution. If other organisations are involved, additional fields will appear for each partner organisation added in Step 4 of the online submission system. For each institution many fields will be read-only data as registered and/or validated in the central registry of organisations of the European Commission, linked to the given PIC number in the Beneficiary Register (previously the URF).
Host Institution (applicant legal entity) Host Institution
Participant Identification Code (PIC)
HI Legal name HI Short name
[pre-filled] – The Participant Identification Code (PIC) enables organisations to take advantage of the Participant Portal. PIC numbers are necessary for the submission of proposals. By entering a PIC, section 2 will be filled in automatically. An online tool to search for existing PICs and the related organisations is available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/organisations/register.ht ml. Organisations not yet having a PIC must self-register (via the same page) before submitting the proposal. Failure to do so will block the submission of your proposal. [pre-filled] [pre-filled]
Address of the organisation Street
[pre-filled]
Town
[pre-filled]
Postcode Country
[pre-filled] [pre-filled]
Webpage
[pre-filled]
Legal Status of your organisation Legal person Public body Non-profit International organisation International organisation of European interest Secondary or Higher education establishment Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) Research organisation NACE Code
[pre-filled] [pre-filled] [pre-filled] [pre-filled] [pre-filled] [pre-filled] [pre-filled] [pre-filled] [pre-filled]
16
Departments Carrying out the Proposed Work Department/Faculty/ Institute/Lab Name Street Town Postcode Country
Please indicate the address of the main department(s)/institute(s)/ unit(s) (max. 3) that belongs to the same legal entity carrying out the work. Please use Latin characters. Use the 'Add a Department' button to add additional departments or units within the same institution, if necessary. Please enter the street name and number where the department/faculty/institute/laboratory is located, in English. The town where the department/faculty/institute/laboratory is located, in English (please avoid any district codes). Please add here the district code. The country where the department/faculty/institute/laboratory is located, in English.
Principal Investigator (PI) The following information of the Principal Investigator is used to personalise the communications to applicants and the Evaluation Reports. Please make sure that your personal information is accurate and please inform the ERCEA in case your e-mail address changes (by using the call specific e-mail addresses
[email protected] or
[email protected]). The name and e-mail of the Principal Investigator is read-only in the administrative forms (available on Step 5 of the application). Only additional details can be edited here. To edit the name of the PI please save and close the form, and go back to Step 4 of the submission wizard and save the changes. By re-opening the form the data will be updated based on the Step 4 information. Please note that the e-mail provisions the access rights, therefore it cannot be changed. The name of the person can be edited at Step 4. Further details are available in the User Guide of the Submission system (PPSS).
Principal Investigator ORCID
Researcher ID
Last Name*
Last Name at Birth
First Name(s)*
Title
Gender* Female(F)/Male(M)
Nationality*
If you have an ORCID number please enter it here (an example is 0000-0002-18250097). If you have any other researcher identifier number please enter it here.
[pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4] Last name as given on Passport or Identity Card. Your last name at birth.
[pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4] Your first name(s) as given on Passport or Identity Card. Please choose one of the following: Prof, Dr, Mr, Mrs, or Ms.
This information is required for statistical and mailing purposes. Indicate F or M as appropriate. [drop-down menu] Please select one country.
17
[drop-down menu] Country of residence*
Date of Birth* (DD/MM/YYYY)
Please select the country in which you legally reside.
Please specify your date of birth using the format (DD/MM/YYYY). [drop-down menu]
Country of Birth*
Place of Birth*
Please select the country in which you were born.
The town in which you were born. Insert the name of the town in English (please avoid any district codes).
Contact Address Current Organisation name Current Department/Faculty/ Institute/Laboratory name
Name under which your organisation is registered.
Name under which your department/faculty/institute/laboratory is registered.
Street
The street name and number.
Town*
The town, in English (please avoid any district codes).
Postcode/Cedex
Country*
Phone 1*
Phone2/Mobile
E-mail*
The postal code. [drop-down menu] Please select one country. Please insert the full phone number including country and city/area code. Example +322-2991111.
Please insert the full mobile number including country and city/area code. Example +322-2991111. The mobile phone number is optional, but it is strongly recommended to insert it since this may be used to reach the PI for issues concerning the step 2 interviews. Pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4.
Contact address of the host institution and contact person for the ERC. The name and e-mail of the host institution contact persons is read-only in the administrative forms (available at Step 5 of the application); only additional details can be edited here. To give access rights and contact details of host institution, please add the details at Step 4 of the submission wizard and save the changes (see instructions above at the PI.) Please note that submission is blocked without a Main Contact Person and e-mail address for the host institution. After pressing save at step 4 you should re-open the pdf-form and save the data after any change in the contact details.
18
Organisation legal name First name(s)* Last name* E-mail* Position in organisation Office/Section/ Department/Faculty/ name
[pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4] [pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4] [pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4] [pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4] e.g. senior administrative officer The name under which the host department/faculty/institute/laboratory is registered.
Street
The street name and number.
Town
The town, in English (please avoid any district codes).
The postal code.
Postcode/Cedex
[drop-down menu]
Country
Please select one country.
Phone
Please insert the full phone number including country and city/area code. Example +322-2991111.
Phone2/Mobile
Please insert the full mobile number including country and city/area code. The mobile number is optional. .
Other Contact Persons with access rights (full or read only) [pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4] [pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4] [pre-filled from 'Contacts' at Step 4] Editable. Please insert the full phone number including country and city/area code. Example +32-2-2991111.
First name(s) Last name E-mail Phone
3 – Budget (notes for information only) Financial information (in euros) – whole duration of the project Please ensure that all costs are given in whole Euros (integer), not thousands of Euros. Please ensure that the figures in this table match the total eligible costs and requested EU grant in Part B2 (section c, resources), where needed including the 25% indirect costs. Participant Number in this proposal
The PI’s host institution of the proposal is automatically number one.
Organisation short name
[pre-filled]
Organisation country
[pre-filled]
Total Eligible Costs Requested Grant
The sum of direct costs (personnel and others), indirect costs of 25% and subcontracting. The total budget that you are requesting as the ERC grant (in Euros)
19
4 – Ethics (notes for information only) In H2020 the completion of a general Ethics table has become compulsory and part of the online administrative forms. The PI must indicate any ethics issue in this section 4 together with a proposal page number (referring to Part B2). To correctly identify and deal with any ethics issues related to your proposal - please refer to Annex 4 to this document. Annex 4 also gives guidance on how to write the ethics self-assessment and indicates which supporting documentation, if any, will be needed for the Ethics Review procedure. Areas excluded from funding under Horizon 2020 (Art. 19.3 of the H2020 Framework Programme) (i) Research activity aiming at human cloning for reproductive purposes; (ii) Research activity intended to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such changes heritable (Research relating to cancer treatment of the gonads can be financed); (iii) Research activities intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer. All Horizon 2020 funded research shall comply with the relevant national, EU and international ethics related rules and professional codes of conduct. Where necessary, the beneficiary(ies) shall provide the ERCEA with a written confirmation that it has received (a) favourable opinion(s) of the relevant ethics committee(s) and, if applicable, the regulatory approval(s) of the competent national or local authority(ies) in the country in which the research is to be carried out. The copy of the official approval from the relevant national or local ethics committees must also be provided to the ERCEA. Ethics Issues (extended table available in Annex 4)
I confirm that I have taken into account all ethics issues described above and that if any ethics issues apply, I will complete the ethics self-assessment and attach the required documents.
[Tick box] - The Ethics Issues Table has to be completed even if there are no issues (simply confirm that none of the ethics issues apply to the proposal). If any of the ethics issues indicated in the Ethics Issues Table apply to your proposal, you must provide an ethics self-assessment following the instruction in Annex 4. For indication of additional supporting documentation needed, please see the extended table of ethics issues in Annex 4.
5 – Call specific questions (notes for information only) Academic Training Are you a medical doctor or do you hold a degree in medicine? Please note that if you have also been awarded a PhD, your medical degree may be your first eligible degree. If you answered yes to the question above, have you also held a position that requires doctoral equivalence (e.g. post-doctoral fellowship, professorship appointment)? For medical doctors, a medical degree will not be accepted by itself as equivalent to a PhD.
20
[Yes/No]
[Yes/No] – Please upload supporting documentation for any position that requires doctoral equivalence.
Date of earliest award (PhD or equivalent) DD/MM/YYYY*
–
Please specify the date of award of the earliest degree (PhD or equivalent doctoral degree) that makes you eligible for the ERC Starting/Consolidator Grant. For medical doctors, this may be your medical degree or your PhD - depending on whether you have held a position requiring doctoral equivalence and when. Please note that if your medical degree is the earliest degree that makes you eligible for the call, the certified date of the MD completion plus two years is the time reference for calculation of the eligibility time-window and the date that needs to be entered in this field (i.e. 4-9 years past MD for Starters, and over 9-14 years past MD for Consolidators). For the Starting Grant the Principal Investigator shall have been awarded his/her first PhD at least 2 and up to 7 years prior to 1 January 2017 for proposals of the ERC Starting Grant. For the Consolidator Grant the Principal Investigator shall have been awarded his/her first PhD over 7 and up to 12 years prior to 1 January 2017 for proposals of the ERC Consolidator Grant. With respect to the earliest award (PhD or equivalent), I request an extension of the eligibility window, (indicate number of days) [see the ERC Work Programme 2017]. The effective elapsed time since the award of the first PhD can be reduced in the following properly documented circumstances where they apply to the Principal Investigator. For maternity, the effective elapsed time since the award of the first PhD will be considered reduced by 18 months or if longer by the documented amount of leave actually taken for each child born before or after the PhD award. For paternity, the effective elapsed time since the award of the first PhD will be considered reduced by the actual amount of paternity leave taken for each child born before or after the PhD award. For long-term illness (over ninety days for the Principal Investigator or a close family member; i.e. child, spouse, parent or sibling), clinical training or national service the effective elapsed time since the award of the first PhD (for applicants whose first eligible degree is their MD such incidents can be considered from the date of the completion of their MD degree) will be considered reduced by the documented amount of leave actually taken by the Principal Investigator for each incident which occurred after the PhD award. Please indicate in this box the reason(s) for requesting an extension (max. 100 characters): Please note that corresponding certificates/documentation have to be uploaded Please indicate (max. 100 characters) the main reason(s) - as established in the ERC Work Programme 2017 justifying your request for the extension of the eligibility window. Please attach all necessary supporting documents.
21
[Date] - The date should correspond to the date on the actual original certificate. For more information on equivalent doctoral degrees, please see Annex 3 to this document. Wrong or missing information may result in your proposal being declared ineligible.
[Yes/No]
[no of days] - In case you wish to request an extension to your eligibility window – please indicate the number of days requested.
Eligibility Please indicate your percentage of working time in an EU Member State or Associated Country over the period of the grant.
Please note that you are expected to spend a minimum of 50% of your total working time in an EU Member State or Associated Country.
I acknowledge that I am aware of the eligibility requirements for applying for this ERC call as specified in the ERC Work Programme 2017, and certify that, to the best of my knowledge my application is in compliance with all these requirements. I understand that my proposal may be declared ineligible at any point during the evaluation or granting process if it is found not to be compliant with these eligibility criteria.*
[Yes] - Please confirm that you are eligible according to all requirements established in the ERC Work Programme 2017 – please pay particular attention to the section 'Restrictions on submission of proposals'.
Data-Related Questions and Data Protection Consent to any question below is entirely voluntary. A positive or negative answer will not affect the evaluation of your project proposal in any form and will not be communicated to the evaluators of your project For communication purposes only, the ERC asks for your permission to publish, in whatever form and medium, your name, the proposal title, the proposal acronym, the panel, and host institution, should your proposal be retained for funding.
[Yes/No]
Some national and regional public research funding authorities run schemes to fund ERC applicants that score highly in the ERC's evaluation but which cannot be funded by the ERC due to its limited budget. In case your proposal could not be selected for funding by the ERC do you consent to allow the ERC to disclose the results of your evaluation (score and ranking range) together with your name, non-confidential proposal title and abstract, proposal acronym, host institution and your contact details to such authorities?
[Yes/No]
The ERC is sometimes contacted for lists of ERC funded researchers by institutions that are awarding prizes to excellent researchers. Do you consent to allow the ERC to disclose your name, non-confidential proposal title and abstract, proposal acronym, host institution and your contact details to such institutions?
[Yes/No]
The Scientific Council of the ERC has developed a monitoring and evaluation strategy in order to help it fulfil its obligations to establish the ERC's overall strategy and to monitor and quality control the programme's implementation from the scientific perspective. As provided by section 3.10 of the ERC Rules for Submission, a range of projects and studies may be initiated for purposes related to monitoring, study and evaluating the implementation of ERC actions. Do you consent to allow the third parties carrying out these projects and studies to process the content of your proposal including your personal data and the respective evaluation data? The privacy statement on processing operations of applicants' and
[Yes/No]
22
beneficiaries' data for H2020 available on the Participant Portal24 explains further how your personal data is secured.
Exclusion of independent experts at the request of an applicant As established in section 3.3 of the ERC Rules for Submission, applicants submitting proposals may request that up to three specific persons would not act as peer reviewers in the evaluation of their proposal. Such a request is done at the time of proposal submission in the online administrative forms section 5 'Excluded Reviewers'. If the person(s) identified is an independent expert participating in the ERC Starting or Consolidator Grant 2017 evaluation, he/she may be excluded from the evaluation of the proposal as long as ERCEA remains in the position to have the proposal evaluated. Applicants need to provide the following data about the persons which they intend to exclude from the evaluation: - Name of the expert(s); - Institution/employer, Town and Country; - Web page. First Name
Last Name
Institution
Town
Country
Webpage
Please use the 'Add' button to fill information on each identified expert. By clicking the 'Remove' button you may delete the expert again. Such a request will be treated confidentially by the authorised staff of ERCEA. If the excluded expert is a member of a panel he/she will be informed about the request concerning him/her. Please note that the request for exclusion is accepted by ERCEA as long as the proposal can still be evaluated by other reviewers having the necessary expertise. Additionally, in application of the existing regulation25 on data protection, an excluded expert may be granted access to all data linked to his/her exclusion. The names of the excluded experts may be provided to the Panel Chair and/or members of the relevant panel(s). Please note that all fields, excluding the webpage, have to be properly completed for the request to be considered.
24
The Specific Privacy Statement on the protection of personal data related to the processing operations of applicants' and beneficiaries' data: proposal evaluation, grant management and follow-up in H2020 is available through the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/support/legal_notice/h2020-sspsgrants_en.pdf 25 Reform of data protection legislation: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/
23
Open Research Data Pilot in Horizon 2020 All selected applicants will now be included in the Horizon 2020 Pilot on Open Research Data26 in order to facilitate access, re-use and preservation of research data generated during their research work. Applicants can opt-out of this pilot at proposal submission stage by responding to the question below in the online submission form. The detailed requirements on open access to publications and to research data and data related products are contained in the Horizon 2020 ERC Model Grant Agreement27. Beneficiaries should carefully check the additional obligations related to open research data contained in Article 29.3. They may opt out of the Horizon 2020 Pilot on Open Research Data at any stage freeing themselves retroactively from the obligations associated with being included in the pilot.
Participation in this Pilot does not constitute part of the evaluation process. Proposals will not be evaluated favourably because they are part of the Pilot and will not be penalised for not participating. We wish to opt out of the Pilot on Open Research Data in Horizon 2020
[Yes/No] – this field is pre-ticked with 'NO'. If you wish to opt-out please tick 'YES'
Optional: Please specify the reason(s) for not being able to participate in the pilot
Free text box (optional)
1.1.2.2 Instructions for completing 'Part B' of the proposal The research proposal (Part B) consists of two parts: Part B1 (including cover page, sections a, b, and c) and Part B2 (including sections a, b, and c). The templates for these two parts are provided in PPSS and their use is mandatory. The electronic upload of the research proposal Parts B1 and B2 is done at Step 5 'Edit Proposal' and submitted via PPSS – see point 1.1.3 of this document.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be aware that at step 1 of the evaluation only Part B1 is evaluated by the panel members, while at step 2 both Parts B1 and B2 are evaluated. When drafting Part B1, PIs should pay particular attention to the extended synopsis (section a) and should not consider it as simply complementing Part B2. It is important that the extended synopsis contains all essential information including the feasibility of the scientific proposal since the panel will only evaluate Part B1 at step 1. Please, note that at step 1 the panel has no access to Part B2. The panel members are asked to act as generalists when evaluating the proposals. Thus, their expertise will have to cover a wide range of proposals within a research field, especially during the step 1 evaluation. For this reason and the fact that panel members evaluate only Part B1 at step 1, PIs should ensure that Part B1 is as complete and detailed as possible. In addition to the panel members (who act as 'generalists'), the ERC evaluations rely on input from remote referees. They are scientists and scholars who bring in the necessary specialised expertise. Remote referees work remotely and deliver their individual assessments by electronic means. They do not participate in panel meetings and normally their involvement is limited to step 2 of the evaluation process. 26
According to article 43.2 of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 11 December 2013, laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in 'Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)' and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006. 27 H2020 ERC Model Grant Agreement - Article 29.3 'Open access to research data' http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/funding/reference_docs.html#h2020-mga-erc
24
The information to be included in each of the sections as well as the maximum length of each section or its sub-sections, which needs to be respected strictly, is described below. In fairness to all applicants, the page limits below will be applied strictly. Only the material that is presented within these limits will be evaluated (peer reviewers will only be asked to read the material presented within the page limits, and will be under no obligation to read beyond them). Each proposal page shall carry a header presenting the PI's last name, the acronym of the proposal, and the reference to the respective proposal section (Part B1 or Part B2). The following parameters shall be respected for the layout: Page Format
Font Type
Font Size
Line Spacing
Margins
A4
Times New Roman Arial or similar
At least 11
Single
2 cm side 1.5 bottom
Part B1 – Cover page: Please abide by the format requirements, as exemplified in the online template provided in the Participant Portal Submission Page for the call. Name of the Principal Investigator (PI) Name of the PI's host institution for the project Proposal full title Proposal short name Proposal duration in months Proposal abstract (half page, must be a copy/paste of abstract from the administrative form section 1) For inter-disciplinary/cross-panel proposals: please indicate the additional ERC review panel(s) and explain why the proposal needs to be considered by more than one panel. Part B1 Sections a, b and c: The Research Proposal a. Extended Synopsis of the scientific proposal (max. 5 pages) The Extended Synopsis should give a concise presentation of the scientific proposal, with particular attention to the ground-breaking nature of the research project and the feasibility of the outlined scientific approach. Describe the proposed work in the context of the state of the art of the field. References to literature should also be included. References do not count towards the page limits. It is important that this extended synopsis contains all essential information including the feasibility of the scientific proposal since the panel will only evaluate Part B1 at step 1. The Principal Investigator b. Curriculum Vitae (max. 2 pages): The CV should include the standard academic and research record. A suggested outline is available in the Part B1 downloadable template. The structure of the CV may be modified. Any research career gaps and/or unconventional paths should be clearly explained so that they can be fairly assessed by the evaluation panels.
25
The succinct 'funding ID' which must specify any current research grants and their subject, and any on-going application for work related to the proposal must follow the table format indicated in the Part B1 template. The funding ID will not count towards the page limits and needs to be completed with the following information for on-going grants and applications: Project Title, Funding source, Amount, Period, Role of the PI, Relation to the ERC proposal c. Early achievements track-record28 (max. 2 pages): The Principal Investigator (PI) must provide a list of achievements reflecting their track record. The applicant should list (if applicable): 1. Publications (up to five for Starting Grant and up to ten for Consolidator Grant) in major international peer-reviewed multi-disciplinary scientific journals and/or in the leading international peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed conferences proceedings and/or monographs of their respective research fields, highlighting those as main author or without the presence as co-author of their PhD supervisor (properly referenced (including all authors), field relevant bibliometric indicators may also be included); 2. Research monographs and any translations thereof; 3. Granted patent(s); 4. Invited presentations to peer-reviewed, internationally established conferences and/or international advanced schools; 5.
Prizes/Awards/Academy memberships.
Part B2 Sections a, b, and c: The scientific proposal (max. 15 pages) This part is evaluated only in step 2 of the peer review evaluation. Please note that Part B1 is also available at Step 2. Please abide by the format requirements, as exemplified in the template provided online in the Participant Portal Submission Page for the call. References do not count towards the page limit. The scientific, technical, and/or scholarly aspects of the project should be described more in detail demonstrating the ground-breaking nature of the research, its potential impact and research methodology. The fraction of the applicant's research effort that will be devoted to this project and a full estimation of the real project costs also need to be indicated. a. State of the art and objectives: Specify clearly the objectives of the proposal, in the context of the state of the art in the field. When describing the envisaged research it should be indicated how and why the proposed work is important for the field, and what impact it will have if successful, such as how it may open up new horizons or opportunities for science, technology or scholarship. Specify any particularly challenging or unconventional aspects of the proposal, including multi- or interdisciplinary aspects. b. Methodology Describe the proposed methodology in detail including, as appropriate, key intermediate goals. Explain and justify the methodology in relation to the state of the art, including any particularly novel or unconventional aspects addressing 'high-risk/high-gain' balance. Highlight any intermediate stages where results may require adjustments to the project planning. In case it is proposed that team 28
As described in the ERC Work Programme 2017 section on the profiles of the ERC Starting and Consolidator Grant Principal Investigator.
26
members engaged by another host institution participate in the project, their participation has to be fully justified. This should be done emphasising the scientific added value they bring to the project. c. Resources (incl. project costs) It is strongly recommended to use the budget table template included in Part B2 to facilitate the assessment of resources by the panels. (For detailed information on eligible- and non-eligible direct and indirect costs as well as the different cost categories, applicants should consult the H2020 ERC Model Grant Agreement and the H2020 ERC Annotated Model Grant Agreement29). Please use whole Euro integers only when preparing the budget table. State the amount of funding considered necessary to fulfil the objectives for the duration of the project. The resources requested should be reasonable and fully justified in the proposal. The requested grant should be in proportion to the actual needs to fulfil the objectives of the project. Specify briefly your commitment to the project and how much time you are willing to devote to the proposed project. Please note that for Starting Grants you are expected to devote at least 50% of your total working time to the ERC-funded project. For Consolidator Grants you are expected to devote at least 40% of your total working time to the ERC-funded project. (see the ERC Work Programme 2017). Describe the size and nature of the team, indicating, where appropriate, the key team members and their roles. The participation of team members engaged by another host institution should be justified in relation to the additional financial cost this may impose to the project. Take into account the percentage of your dedicated time to run the ERC funded activity when calculating your personnel costs. Specify any existing resources that will contribute to the project. Describe other necessary resources, such as infrastructure and equipment. It is advisable to include a short technical description of the equipment requested, a justification of its need as well as the intensity of its planned use. When estimating the costs for travel, please also consider participation of the PI and team members in conferences and dissemination events. The terms and conditions laid down in the ERC Model Grant Agreement address how scientific publications must be made available through Open Access. Applicants should be aware that it will be mandatory to provide Open Access (free of charge, online access for any user) to all peer-reviewed scientific publications resulting from ERC projects funded through this call. Open Access can be ensured through green or gold Open Access-routes, and Open Access must in any case be ensured through a repository at the latest 6 months after publication (12 months for publications from the Social Sciences and Humanities). Please see Article 29.2 of the ERC Model Grant Agreement for more details, or contact
[email protected]. Costs for providing immediate Open Access to publications (article processing charges) are eligible and can be charged against the ERC grant if they are incurred during the lifetime of the project. When drafting the budget, it is highly advisable to consider the need to include such expenditure, and if that is the case, to make a realistic estimation of the amount needed. In addition, the ERC 29
Applicants should pay special attention to the new cost category 'Direct costing for Large Research Infrastructures'. This new cost category will only be applicable for PIs who are hosted by institutions with Large Research Infrastructures of a value of at least EUR 20 million and only after having received a positive ex-ante assessment from the Commission's services. This new cost category should only be used for costs to access large research infrastructures inside the premises of and owned by the participating organisations. Please refer to the ERC Model Grant Agreement, pgs. 83 to 93.
27
recommends that all funded researchers follow best practice by retaining files of research data produced and used, and are prepared to share these data with other researchers when not bound by copyright restrictions, confidentiality requirements, or contractual clauses. In the budget table: Include the direct costs of the project plus a flat-rate financing of indirect costs calculated as 25% of the total eligible direct costs (excluding subcontracting) towards overheads. Furthermore, include a breakdown of the budget subdivided in personnel costs, travel, equipment, consumables, publication costs (including any costs related to Open Access), other direct costs, and any envisaged subcontracting costs. If additional funding, above the normal (for Starting Grants EUR 1 500 000 and for Consolidator Grants EUR 2 000 000), is requested for (a) covering eligible 'start-up' costs for a PI moving from another country to the EU or an Associated Country as a consequence of receiving an ERC grant and/or (b) the purchase of major equipment and/or (c) access to large facilities, then this needs to be fully justified in the table provided for this purpose. Please note that any additional funding request under (a) and (b) is subject to 25% overhead. The request of additional funding under (c) to access large research facilities owned by a third party30 and not used on the premises of the beneficiaries should be listed in cost category 'C2. Other Direct Costs with no overheads'. The costs are given for the full duration. A breakdown by reporting period is not requested for the evaluation process. The 'Total eligible costs' as well as the 'Total requested EU grant' figures should be equal to those inserted in the online proposal submission forms (section 3 – Budget). The ERC funds 100% of the total eligible costs. In case the total costs differ from the requested grant, it should be specified in the proposal what exactly is funded from other sources. The project cost estimation should be as accurate as possible. The evaluation panels assess the estimated costs carefully; unjustified budgets will be consequently reduced.
Supporting Documentation Any additional annexes, including the PhD documentation, the host institution support letter (and where relevant in case of ethical issues or requests for eligibility extensions) should be provided and uploaded as separate pdf documents. These annexes do not count towards the maximum page limit for Part B2.
30
H2020 ERC Model Grant Agreement - Articles 11 and 12 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/funding/reference_docs.html#h2020-mga-erc
28
1.1.2.3 Supporting Documentation A scanned copy of the following supporting documentation needs to be submitted with the proposal by uploading electronically in PPSS in PDF format:
The host institution (applicant legal entity) must confirm its association with and its support to the project and the Principal Investigator. As part of the application the institution must provide a binding statement that the conditions of independence are already fulfilled or will be provided to the Principal Investigator if the application is successful. The host institution support letter (template available on PPSS, or please see Annex 2 to this document) needs to be originally signed, stamped and dated by the institution's legal representative. Proposals that do not include this institutional statement may be declared ineligible. The PI must submit scanned copies of documents proving his/her eligibility for the grant, i.e. the PhD certificate (or equivalent doctoral degree, see Annex 3 to this document) clearly indicating the date of award and, in case of an extension of the eligibility period has been requested (beyond 7 years for Starting Grant applicants and 12 years for Consolidator Grant applicants), the relevant documentary evidence. Any additional supporting documents which may be required following the indications provided in this document (i.e. ethical self-assessment and supporting documentation for the ethics review procedure).
Copies of official documents can be submitted in any of the EU official languages. Document(s) in any other language must be provided together with a certified translation into English. Please provide only the documents requested above. Unless specified in the call, any hyperlinks to other documents, embedded material, and any other documents (company brochures, support letters, reports, audio, video, multimedia etc.) will be disregarded. Experts will not have access to any supporting documentation during the evaluation.
Check if the proposal is complete for the evaluation Incomplete proposals (where parts or sections of the proposal and/or the host institution's commitment statement are missing) may be declared ineligible and will not be evaluated31. The proposal must be submitted before the relevant deadline of the call to the appropriate primary ERC panel (i.e. the panel which covers the main scientific areas of the research proposed). Where there is a doubt on the eligibility of a proposal, the peer review evaluation may proceed pending a decision by an eligibility review committee. If it becomes clear before, during or after the peer review evaluation phase, that one or more of the eligibility criteria has not been met, the proposal is declared ineligible and is withdrawn from any further examination.
31
See also section 2.4 'eligibility check' in the ERC Rules for Submission and in the ERC Work Programme 2017.
29
Box 2: Checklist – Is your proposal complete? For the submission of a complete ERC Starting or Consolidator Grant proposal, the following components have to be prepared and submitted: The Administrative Form: to be completed online in PPSS first pre-register; complete the mandatory details on the Principal Investigator and Main Host Institution Contact Person; complete the administrative forms (Part A - sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Click on 'Validate Form' to check if there is any missing data. The Research Proposal (Part B1 and B2) and all supporting documentation should be uploaded and 32 submitted via PPSS as PDF files. Make sure all file names contain the 'Proposal Short Name', such as PartB1_[Proposal-Short-Name].pdf and PhD_[Proposal-Short-Name].pdf The Research Proposal (Part B): Part B1 (to be evaluated at step 1 and step 2): Section a – The Extended Synopsis of the scientific proposal. Section b and c – The Principal Investigator's Curriculum Vitae and Early achievements track-record. The 'Funding ID' should be specified using the provided table format. Part B2 (to be evaluated at step 2 only): Section a – State-of-the art and objectives Section b – Methodology Section c – Resources (including project costs and duly completed budget table) The Supplementary Documents: The supporting statement from the host institution: originally signed, stamped and dated by the host institution's legal representative (see Annex 2). PhD certificate (or equivalent doctoral degree – see Annex 3 to this document) clearly indicating the date of award and, in case of requested extension of eligibility period, the documentary evidence (e.g. for maternity, paternity leave, national service, long-term illness, clinical training). If applicable, the ethics self-assessment explaining how the ethics issues will be treated (see Annex 4 to this document on how to write the ethics self-assessment and on the need for supporting documentation). Click on 'Validate' in the application to see any missing data of the form or the application. Please ensure that all forms and supplementary documents are uploaded correctly in PPSS before the final submission. It is strongly recommended to double-check by downloading them and verifying their completeness. If all components (including all the sections in Part B1 and Part B2 and required supplementary documents) are not present in the final submission your proposal may be declared ineligible.
32
Please note that filenames cannot exceed 75 characters including the file extension.
30
1.1.3 How to submit the grant application General User Guidance The User Guide of the Submission Service is available online http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/support/sep_usermanual.pdf
at:
The H2020 Online Manual http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020funding-guide/grants/applying-for-funding/submit-proposals_en.htm describes the standard process of proposal submission. The IT HOW TO wiki site provides an online IT manual with screenshots. Proposals must be submitted electronically using the electronic submission system of the web-based Participant Portal (PPSS)33. Access to PPSS is available from the call page (after selecting a topic, and clicking on the 'Submission Service' button, and the type of action of a call) of the Research and Innovation Participant Portal34. Please note that some internet browsers and/or Operating Systems (OS) may not be supported by PPSS. The electronic submission system of the European Commission is a web application, so you will need a working Internet connection to use it. Although the system has been tested with a set of typical reference configurations, it is not guaranteed that the system will be fully functional on your computer. The system provides a diagnostic window that will warn you about some possible incompatibilities. To use the electronic submission system, ensure well before the deadline that your computer configuration complies with the mandatory system requirements. NB: As requirements can change, please check them here: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/submission/manage/diagnostics, or the 'User guide of the submission service' also available from the 'Submission Service'. Make sure you have the correct version of Adobe Reader installed and is set up as your default PDF handler. Most browsers have their own built-in PDF viewers. If your browser's built-in PDF viewer is not allowing you to properly open, view and edit the Administrative form in step 5, it is recommended that you disable your browser's PDF viewer and instead use the corresponding Adobe Reader plug-in. This way you will be able to open up, view and edit the form within the browser. As stated above, you can also complete the form offline and then save it to the Commission servers. In case you chose to work offline, please check immediately that the set-up allows you to save the data to the submission system. In case of difficulties with the browser and/or operating system including with the Adobe plug-inn needed to work online with the electronic submission form we advise you to contact the PPSS
Service Desk if needed at
[email protected] or directly by phone at +32 (2) 29 92222. Step 1: 'ECAS registration' - Getting a user ID with the Commission To be able to submit a proposal, you must first register for an ECAS account. Getting a user ID with the European Commission Authentication Service (ECAS) is mandatory in order to login to the 33 34
In duly justified exceptional circumstances the ERCEA may authorise submission on paper. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/
31
Participant Portal and to be able to use the different functions of the Portal, including the proposal submission. Each time you access the proposal for editing, this user ID is requested. The same user ID is used for all later interactions with the ERCEA, including notification of the results of the evaluation. Step 2: 'Access the proposal submission system' Access to the system is provided from the topic's page after selecting the 'Submission Service' tab, and choosing the required action type. The system requires to login to the Portal with your ECAS ID. Step 3: 'Create a draft proposal' (pre-registration) At this step, you fill in pre-registration data for the proposal. These details will be used by the ERCEA in order to plan the evaluation. You will not have access to this page again once it is completed and you have progressed to Step 4, but certain data can be modified at a later stage. Be careful to choose the correct PIC-number for your host institution AND to type the correct e-mail address of the PI/or of another contact initiating the proposal at this step. We recommend that you as a PI create the draft proposal. This is to ensure that you have the right to manage the access rights to your proposal at Step 4.
When registering, please select the type of contact person you are: 'Principal Investigator', 'Main Host Institution Contact', or 'Contact Person' (e.g. additional contact person or teammember). This will have an influence on the subsequent steps. The person who creates the proposal becomes the 'primary coordinator contact' for the proposal (as used on the Participant Portal) and will determine the access rights of other people to the proposal data. Acronym: This is used to identify your proposal efficiently in the call. It should be no more than 20 characters (use standard alphabet and numbers only; no symbols or special characters, except underscore, space, hyphen or dot). Please note that the acronym can be modified later in the administrative form. Short summary: The short summary describes briefly the purpose of the proposal with a maximum of 2000 characters. You may decide not to provide the full summary, but a list of keywords of the proposal will help the services in the planning of the evaluation. The 'short summary' information is copied to the 'Abstract' field in the online administrative forms section 1, where it can be modified (see Step 5). ERC Review Panel: Select the review panel by which you would like your proposal to be evaluated (see Annex 1 to this document for the full list). Please note that the panel chosen at this step can be modified later in the administrative form.
Please note that the list of participants will also be part of the pre-registration data. At this step, the host institution must be identified with a Participant Identification Code (PIC). Failure to do so blocks the preparation and the submission of the proposal! The PIC is a unique 9 digit number that helps the ERCEA identify a participant (organisation). It is used in all grant-related interactions between the organisation and the ERCEA (or with the European Commission in other actions of Horizon 2020). Once an organisation is registered (in the Beneficiary Register, which is hosted in the Participant Portal32), it eliminates redundant requests for information. If a PIC is not yet available for an organisation, it can be obtained by registering the organisation in the Beneficiary Register. A PIC is then given, which can then be used in PPSS35. 35
This self-registration will lead to a request by the Validation Service to the organisation to provide supporting documents and to nominate a Legal Entity Authorised Representative (LEAR). However, this PIC code does not need to be validated for proposal submission. If your proposal is selected, this additional information and validation will be completed at a later stage before a grant agreement can be signed.
32
If your host institution has already participated in a FP7/H2020 proposal, it is likely that you already have a PIC number. You can check this with the PIC search facility on the Beneficiary Register Page, where additional information on how to register is also available: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/organisations/register.html
You are strongly advised to register your proposal well in advance of the call deadline to verify if the PIC is available for your host institution. If it is not, you then have sufficient time to register and contact your host institution or the PPSS Service Desk if needed at
[email protected] or directly by phone at +32 (2) 29 92222. After entering the PIC, certain sections (e.g. of section 2) of the online proposal submission forms are filled in automatically. The objective of the PIC is to identify the organisation and validation of the information will happen at a later stage, if the proposal is retained for funding. Note: If an organisation has a PIC, it is likely that it has a person in charge of the administrative questions with the European Commission (the legal entity appointed representative – LEAR36). Identifying this person inside your organisation may help you in the proposal submission process. The LEAR can modify the data related to the PIC if needed. How to contact the LEAR? You can either (1) go to the Beneficiary Register page, click 'Search', define the PIC and click on the green CO (contact organisation) button or (2) click on the green 'Contact LEAR' button in the Host Institution box at Step 4. 1
2
Once Steps 1 to 3 are completed, the draft proposal is created in PPSS. You will receive an e-mail informing you that you have successfully created a draft proposal. You can continue to Step 4 or return later to edit this draft proposal. This is done by following the steps below: 1. Go to the Participant Portal http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/ 36
The LEAR is a person nominated in each legal entity participating in FP7/H2020. This person is the contact for the ERCEA related to all questions on legal status. He/she has access to the on-line database of legal entities with a possibility to view the data stored on his/her entity and to initiate updates and corrections to these data. After the validation of the entity has been finalised, the contact person/authorised representative named in the Research and Innovation Participant Portal receives the PIC number. Once the LEAR is validated, he/she manages the modifications of the entity-related information in the Research and Innovation Participant Portal and distributes the PIC number within his/her organisation, which can be used in all proposal submission and grant preparation.
33
2. Click on the login button and provide your ECAS username and password 3. Click on the 'My Proposals' tab 4. Depending on the status of the proposal, you jump to either Step 5 'Edit draft' or Step 6 'View submitted'.
Step 4 'Manage Your Related Parties and access rights' Here you see the name and details of the host institution (always participant number '1') and the name of the person who created the draft proposal. At this step, you can:
add the Main Host Institution Contact Person name or the Principal Investigator (if not done yet) and e-mail
add additional organisations ('Add partners'), and
give access to one or more 'Contact person'(s) (full access or read-only access)
Be careful to type the correct e-mail address of the PI and of the main contact person for the host institution at this step. Please note that if the Principal Investigator and the Main Host Institution Contact is the same person (because the PI is self-employed), you must use two different e-mail addresses as the system does not allow two identical e-mail addresses to be entered. Organisations must be identified by their nine-digit PIC numbers. A search function is provided in the system to facilitate the search for partners (if any). If you realise that you have made a mistake in selecting the organisation, you can use the 'Change Organisation' button.
When giving access rights to contact persons, the e-mail address of the person serves as the main identifier. You must define the level of access rights for each contact person:
Full access (Principal Investigator's level of rights is named 'Coordinator contact' in PPSS - The Coordinator contact/PI has the right to edit all parts of the proposal, upload documents, submit, and withdraw the proposal) or read-only rights (team member) are supported.
For each contact person the role within the project must be defined: usually Principal Investigator or Main Host Institution Contact in ERC actions.
Please be aware that only one person should work on the forms at any given time. If two persons work on the forms at the same time, in case of a save conflict, the last save wins, which means that you risk overwriting changes made by other contact person if you are working in parallel.. It is therefore recommended that you give 'read-only access' to your partners and additional contact
34
persons unless it is absolutely necessary to give them full access. However, please remember that the Main Host Institution Contact has full access – it is not possible to grant them 'read-only access'. For the Principal Investigator and the Main Host Institution Contact Person full details will be required later in the administrative form (section 2). Please be aware that you MUST enter the details of the PI and the Main Host Institution Contact person at Step 4, since these fields are not editable in Step 5 in the forms. You may at any point return to Step 4 of the submission to add or delete any contact person or to change the access rights. Remember to save your data before leaving Step 4. You may also add the LEAR as a contact person (e.g. as a team member with read-only rights) to the proposal at Step 4 of the application. Once the coordinator saves the changes, an automatic invitation is sent to all contacts' e-mail addresses. The invited persons can access the proposal after logging in to the Participant Portal – with the ECAS account linked to the given e-mail address – under the 'My Proposals' tab. Step 5: 'Edit Proposal' This step is the core of the submission process, as from this step, you can edit the online administrative proposal submission forms, view the history, print the draft proposal, download templates, upload files and submit the proposal by clicking on the relevant buttons. By clicking the 'Edit form' button at Step 5 of the submission wizard, users can fill in the administrative forms of the proposal. The ERC actions have specific administrative forms. The specificities lay mainly in the budget table, in the call specific questions and in the list of declarations. Guidance on how to fill in the administrative forms is provided directly in the form as ghost text for the single entries or as additional help text hidden behind question-marks . Some parts of the form will be prefilled based on the data entered at pre-registration or in the Beneficiary Register. Please use the functionality 'Validate form' button to check the validity and completeness of your data. Any warning or error will be listed at the end of the validated form. Further information on the preparation of the application (the administrative forms and Proposal Parts B1 and B2) is given in points 1.1.2.1 and 1.1.2.2 of this document.
For Part B you must only use PDF ('portable document format'). Other file formats will not be accepted by the system. Irrespective of any page limits specified in this document, there is an overall limit of 10 Mbytes to the size of each uploaded document (Part B1, B2, and supporting documentation). However, it is advised to limit the size of Parts B1 and B2 to 2 Mbytes each.
Unless specified in the call, embedded material and any other documents (company brochures, scientific papers, reports, audio, video, multimedia, etc.) sent electronically or by post, will be disregarded.
There are also restrictions to the name given to the Part B files: use alphanumeric characters; special characters and spaces must be avoided. You are advised to clean your document before converting it to PDF (e.g. accept all tracked changes, delete notes).
35
Check that your conversion software has successfully converted all the pages of your original document (e.g. there is no problem with page limits). Check that your conversion software has not cut down landscape format pages to fit them into portrait format. Check that captions and labels have not been lost from your diagrams.
Completing the proposal submission forms in the PPSS and uploading all the necessary files (mandatory: Part B1, Part B2, host institution support letter, PhD document and – if applicable: Ethical Self-assessment and supporting documentation for ethics issues or/and extension of the eligibility window) does not yet mean that your proposal is submitted. Once there is a consolidated version of the proposal, the 'SUBMIT' button must be pressed. The system performs a limited automatic validation of the proposal. A list of any problems such as missing data, wrong file format or excessive file size will then appear on the screen either as warning or error messages. You may submit your proposal with warnings, but submission is blocked until all errors are corrected. However, the automatic validation does not replace the formal eligibility checks described in point 1.2.1 of this document and cannot guarantee that the contents of these files respond to the requirements of the call. When any errors have been corrected, you must then repeat the above steps to achieve submission.
IMPORTANT: If the submission sequence described above is not followed, the ERCEA considers that no proposal has been submitted.
When the proposal is successfully submitted, the system will proceed to Step 6 where a message that indicates that the proposal has been received is displayed. The system also sends a submission confirmation e-mail to you, with the summary data of the submitted proposal. The mail can end up in the spam folder or be blocked by the anti-spam system of your organisation. This automatic message is not the official acknowledgement of receipt.
Step 6: 'Submit' Reaching this step means that the proposal is submitted (i.e. sent to the ERCEA for evaluation). It does not mean that the proposal is valid, complete and eligible in all respects. Within a few minutes of submission your proposal should be available for download with an e-receipt in the PPSS system. In Step 6 you can: Download the proposal. You are advised to download the proposal once submitted to check that it has been correctly sent. The downloaded proposal with an e-receipt is digitally signed and time stamped. The e-receipt is also the acknowledgement of receipt. Re-edit the proposal, going back to Step 5. You may continue to modify the proposal and submit revised versions overwriting the previous one right up until the deadline. The sequence above must be repeated each time. Withdraw/delete the proposal before the call deadline. If the proposal is deleted or withdrawn, it is not considered for evaluation. (Note: your proposal draft is not deleted from the server and this withdrawal action can be reversed, but only before the deadline, by simply submitting it again).
36
Once submitted, it is recommended to verify the proposal and its content by downloading all the submitted files. We strongly advise that you submit a first version of your proposal at least 24 hours in advance of the call deadline. Warning: Please note that in the last hours prior to call closure, the download option of checking your submitted proposal may be disabled due to a high pressure on the system. In this case we will inform the applicants via the Call Page on the Participant Portal (under 'Call summary') that the function has been disabled. To access the call page (ERC-2017-STG or ERC-2017-COG), go to 'Funding Opportunities' in the Participant Portal, select 'European Research Council' and then select the call you wish to view. If the e-receipt and download option have been disabled, you may review your submitted proposal by going back to Step 5 to check the data in the administrative forms and click on 'View History' to verify which attachments have been uploaded.
Proposals must be submitted before the deadline specified in the call for proposals37.
PPSS will be closed for a relevant call at its call deadline. After this moment, it will be impossible to access PPSS for the relevant call.
Early registration and submission in PPSS is strongly recommended and should be done as early as possible in advance of the call deadline. Applicants, who wait until shortly before the close of the call to start uploading their proposal, take a serious risk that the uploading will not be concluded in time and thus the 'SUBMIT' button will not be active anymore in order to conclude the submission process.
37
In the unlikely event of a failure of the PPSS service due to a breakdown of the Commission server during the last 24 hours of a call, the deadline will be extended by a further 24 hours. This will be notified by e-mail to all applicants who had registered for this call by the time of the original deadline, and also by a notice on the call page on the Participant Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal Such a failure is a rare and exceptional event; therefore do not assume that there will be an extension to this call. If you have difficulty in submitting your proposal, you should not assume that it is because of a problem with the Commission server, as this is rarely the case. For technical inquiries on the use of PPSS, please contact the Participant Portal IT Help Desk (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/api/contact/index.html). Please note that the ERCEA will not extend deadlines for system failures that are not its own responsibility. In all circumstances, you should aim to submit your proposal well before the deadline to have time to solve any problems.
37
Box 3: Proposal submission - important to know:
Proposals sent by means other than PPSS will not be accepted .
Up to the call deadline, it is possible to modify a proposal simply by submitting a new version. As long as the call has not yet closed, the new submission will overwrite the old one.
After the call deadline, no update of the proposal will be accepted. Only the material that the proposal contains within the given page limits while respecting the indicated layout parameters will be evaluated.
Submission is deemed to occur only if the submission sequence described above has been followed and not when the applicant starts uploading the proposal.
Proposals are kept under secure conditions at all times. When no longer needed, all copies are destroyed except those required for archiving and/or auditing purposes.
In some rare occasions the proposal may be altered while in transit on the internet. To check that the uploaded proposal has been received unaltered, please download and verify all uploaded files.
In case of technical problems with PPSS please contact
[email protected] or get in touch with the SEP helpdesk directly on +32 (2) 29 92222 to receive immediate assistance.
31
If the submission is technically successful, the applicant receives an automatic computer-generated acknowledgement from PPSS. Subsequent to submission, and only in exceptional cases, the ERCEA may contact the PI if this is necessary to clarify questions of eligibility, ethics issues, research integrity or to verify administrative or legal data contained in the proposal.
1.1.3.1 Modifying or withdrawing a proposal Up to the call deadline, it is possible to modify a proposal simply by submitting a new version. As long as the call has not yet closed, the new submission will overwrite the old one. The last version of your proposal submitted before the deadline is the one which will be evaluated; no later version can be substituted and no earlier version can be recovered. Once the deadline has passed, the ERCEA cannot accept any further additions, corrections or resubmissions. However, a read-only access to the submitted proposal is granted in case the PI (or other contact persons) wishes to verify what has been submitted. Proposals may be withdrawn before the call deadline at Step 6 using the 'Withdraw' button. A withdrawn proposal will not be considered subsequently for peer review evaluation or for selection, nor count against possible re-application restrictions38. For a proposal to be withdrawn after the call deadline, and for the application not to count against possible future re-applications restrictions, a written request for withdrawal must be received by the ERC Executive Agency at the latest on the day preceding the panel meeting where a final position on the outcome of the evaluation of that proposal is established. The withdrawal of a proposal must be 38
As set out in the ERC Work Programme 2017.
38
done by sending an e-mail to the call-specific mail-box (
[email protected] or
[email protected]) including a signed scanned letter of withdrawal. The ERCEA will use the date of the e-mail as the reference point when deciding if a withdrawal can be accepted. The applicant will receive an acknowledgement to confirm the withdrawal. If more than one version of the same proposal is submitted before the call deadline, only the most recent version is kept for evaluation. In the case of very similar proposals submitted by the same PI, the ERCEA services may ask the PI to withdraw one or more of the proposals concerned. Please consult regularly the Research and Innovation Participant Portal call page for updated information.
39
1.2
Evaluation and selection of grant proposals39
1.2.1 Eligibility Check Proposals are first checked to ensure that all of the eligibility criteria are met. A proposal must fulfil all of the following eligibility criteria: o
It must be submitted before the single submission deadline.
o
It must be complete, readable and printable (i.e. all of the requested forms, parts or sections of the proposal, and supporting documents must be completed and present).
o
Its content must relate to the objectives of the ERC call, as defined in the ERC Work Programme 2017.
o
It must meet the eligibility requirements of the respective ERC grant as well as other criteria mentioned in the relevant call for proposals.
o
It must be in compliance with the restrictions on submission of proposals (see ERC Work Programme 2017).
The eligibility is checked on the basis of the information given by the PI in the proposal. Where there is a doubt about the eligibility of a proposal, the peer review evaluation may proceed pending a final decision by the eligibility review committee. If it becomes clear before, during or after the peer review evaluation phase, that one or more of the eligibility criteria has not been met (for example, due to incorrect or misleading information), the proposal will be declared ineligible and not considered any further.
1.2.2 Peer review evaluation of proposals A single submission of an ERC Starting or Consolidator Grant proposal will be followed by a two-step peer review evaluation. Grant applications are assessed by peer review evaluation panels (ERC panels listed in Annex 1), which may be supported by external experts. These ERC panels assess and score the proposals on the basis of the individual evaluations and on the panel discussion which follows them. Depending on the budget available for the call a budgetary cut-off applies to the ranking list and only the highest ranked proposals are offered an ERC grant until the call budget is consumed. For more details on the evaluation procedure and evaluation criteria, PIs are invited to consult the ERC Work Programme 2017 (Evaluation procedure and criteria) and the ERC Rules for Submission (section 3.6 Organisation of the peer review evaluation). Please note that any direct or indirect contact about the peer review evaluation of a call between the PI and/or applicant legal entity submitting a proposal under the same call on the one side and any independent expert involved in that peer review evaluation on the other side may result in the decision of the ERCEA to exclude the proposal concerned from the call in question. In view of the confidentiality of the evaluation process, applicants who participate in a step 2 interview are advised not to share the identity of panel members within their scientific communities until their names have been published on the ERC website. 39
See also the ERC Work Programme 2017.
40
The ERC's peer review evaluation process has been carefully designed to identify scientific excellence irrespective of the gender, age, nationality or institution of the Principal Investigator and other potential biases, and to take career breaks as well as unconventional research career paths into account. The evaluations are monitored to guarantee transparency, fairness and impartiality in the treatment of proposals.
1.2.2.1 The ERC evaluation panels The peer review evaluation of ERC Starting and Consolidator Grant proposals is in the hands of 25 peer review evaluation panels (ERC panels), covering all fields of science, engineering and scholarship, which for operational reasons are subdivided into three main research domains:
Physical Sciences and Engineering
10 Panels
Life Sciences
9 Panels
Social Sciences and Humanities
6 Panels
Details on the structure of the ERC panels are provided in Annex 1. The panel chair and members have been selected by the ERC Scientific Council on the basis of their scientific reputation. Before the deadline of a call, the names of the panel chairs are published on the ERC website. Similarly, the names of panel members are published, however, after the evaluation process is concluded. An indicative budget is allocated to each panel in proportion to the budgetary demand of its assigned proposals. Proposal allocation to an ERC panel: The initial allocation of the proposals to the various panels will be based on the expressed preference of the applicant Principal Investigator (see 'Proposal description' above). Proposals may be allocated to a different panel with the agreement of both Panel Chairs concerned. It is the PI's responsibility to choose and indicate the most relevant ERC panel ('primary evaluation panel') for the evaluation of the proposed research (at pre-registration and in section 1 of the online administrative forms, see point 1.1.2.1 of this document), and indicate one or more ERC keywords representing the research fields involved (see Annex 1 to this document). On its own initiative or in case that the PI has indicated a secondary evaluation panel, the primary panel will determine whether the proposal is indeed cross-panel or cross-domain and, if this is confirmed, the panel may request additional reviews by appropriate members of other panel(s) or additional experts. The composition of the ERC evaluation panels are by nature multi-disciplinary and therefore some multidisciplinary proposals may be properly evaluated within the main panel. Although the initial allocation is based on the preference of the PI, when necessary due to the expertise required for the evaluation, a proposal may be reallocated to a different panel with the agreement of both panel chairs concerned.
41
Box 4: Interviews with Principal Investigators The review methodology for the ERC Starting/Consolidator Grant includes interviews with PIs of proposals at step 2 conducted by the relevant ERC evaluation panel. Depending on the panel, interviews will last approximately 30 minutes in total. The first part will be devoted to a presentation on the outline of the research project by the PI. The remaining time will be devoted to a question and answer session. The PI should expect questions also related to the content of the budget table, which is part of the application. Panels will take into account the results of the interviews alongside the individual reviews. The ERC will reimburse the PI's travel expenditures for the interview in Brussels (see Commission Decision C(2007) 5858). Travel costs will be reimbursed upon presentation of the appropriate supporting documents. For travel >100 km, a flat rate will be paid to cover living expenses (including costs for overnight stay). Alternatives to interviews: For those candidates who are, in very exceptional cases, unable to attend the interviews (pregnancy, immobility due to illness, out in research fieldwork), two alternatives may be offered: i) video-conferencing, ii) telephone-conferencing. Once invited for an interview, such candidates are requested to indicate in due time to ERCEA in case they need to have recourse to one of these options. Should a planned interview not be possible for reasons beyond the control of the ERCEA, the panel will have to take its decision based on the information made available to it.
1.2.3 Ethics Review Please see the Annex A to the ERC Rules for Submission for a detailed description of the ERC Ethics Review procedure. The ethics review process concerns all projects funded by the ERC in Horizon 2020. The applicants should pay particular attention to the ethical aspects of the proposed work and should submit all ethics documentation available for their proposal. The process is aimed at ensuring that Article 19 of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, and Articles 13 and 14 of the Rules for Participation are implemented and, in particular, that all the research and innovation activities under Horizon 2020 comply with ethics principles and relevant national, Union and international legislation, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights and its Supplementary Protocols. The main areas that are addressed during the ethics review process include: 1. Human protection (including study participants and researchers) 2. Animal protection and welfare 3. Data protection and privacy 4. Environment protection and safety 5. Participation of non-EU countries 6. Malevolent use of research results When submitting their proposal, applicants must complete the Ethics Issues Table which is section 4 of the online proposal submission forms and submit an ethics self-assessment (as a separate annex) if they answer yes to one or several questions in the Ethics Issues Table. Please see Annex 4 to this document for guidance to write an ethics self-assessment.
42
If the proposal is retained for funding, further to the outcome of the ethics review process, the host institutions and the principal investigators receive a copy of the ethics report - unsigned so as to preserve the anonymity of the experts. Please include any supporting documentation, such as any authorisation you may already have. This will allow a more effective ethics clearance and an accelerated granting process if the proposal is retained for possible funding40. Please upload any related documents in PPSS Step 5 'Edit Proposal'. Applicants should be aware that no grant agreement can be signed by ERCEA prior to a satisfactory conclusion of the ethics review procedure. If a proposal is rejected because of ethics considerations, the applicant is informed of the grounds for such a decision and the means to address enquiries and complaints. A dedicated website that aims to provide additional information including ethics issues is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/funding/guide.htmlhttp://ec.europa.e u/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm
1.2.4 Outcome of evaluation At each evaluation step, each proposal will be evaluated and marked for each of the two main elements of the proposal: Research Project and Principal Investigator. At the end of each evaluation step, the proposals will be ranked by the panels on the basis of the marks they have received and the panels' overall appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses. At the end of step 1 of the evaluation, on the basis of the assessment of Part B1 of the proposal, applicants will be informed that their proposal: A. is of sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation; B. is of high quality but not sufficient to pass to step 2 of the evaluation; C. is not of sufficient quality to pass to step 2 of the evaluation. At the end of step 2 of the evaluation, on the basis of the assessment of the full proposal, applicants will be informed that their proposal: A. fully meets the ERC's excellence criterion and is recommended for funding if sufficient funds are available; B. meets some but not all elements of the ERC's excellence criterion and will not be funded. The evaluation panels may review the level of the requested budget for proposals recommended for funding and, as appropriate, suggest adjustments. The applicants may be subject to restrictions on submitting proposals to future ERC calls based on the outcome of the evaluation41. 40 41
A full description of the Ethics Review is provided in the ERC Rules for Submission. Applicants will need to check the restrictions in place for each call.
43
Once the evaluation of their proposals has been completed, applicants will receive an evaluation report which will include the ranking range of their proposal out of the proposals evaluated by the panel. Projects recommended for funding (scored 'A') will be funded by the ERC if sufficient funds are available. Proposals will be funded in priority order based on their rank. This means that it is very likely that not all proposals scored 'A', will eventually be funded by the ERC.
1.2.5 Feedback to applicants Official communications and feedback from the ERCEA to the PI and the host institution (applicant legal entity) will be done via the ECAS secured web-mail account accessible via the Participant Portal. If they have not yet registered an ECAS account, the PI or the applicant legal entity's contact person will receive an activation e-mail (at the address 'E-mail 1' provided in Step 4 of the proposal submission) inviting them to activate their ECAS account. Following to this first activation the ECAS account will be maintained for following communications or feedback. PIs and applicant legal entities are provided with feedback on the outcome of the peer review evaluation through an information letter and an evaluation report. The evaluation report indicates whether the proposal meets the quality threshold and is retained, and provides the score and corresponding comments given by the panel as well as the comments given by the individual reviewers. Please note that the comments by the individual reviewers may not necessarily be convergent – controversy and differences in opinion about the merits of a proposal are part of the 'scientific method' and are legitimate. Furthermore, the ERC panel may take a position that is different from what could be inferred from the comments of the individual reviewers. This is the case for example, if the panel discussion reveals an important weakness in a proposal that had not been identified by the individual reviewers. The panel comments reflect the consensus decision taken by the panel as a whole based on prior remote individual assessments from independent reviewers, which can be non-paid experts as well as panel members, and on a thorough discussion and on the ranking against other proposals during the panel meeting.
1.2.5.1 Evaluation review procedure Please see the section 3.9 of the ERC Rules for Submission for a detailed description of the enquiries and complaints and evaluation review procedures. Upon reception of the feedback on the outcome of the peer review evaluation with the evaluation report or with the results of the eligibility check, the PI and/or the PI’s host institution (applicant legal entity) may wish to introduce a complaint against the ineligibility or a request for evaluation review, if there is an indication that there has been a shortcoming in the way a proposal has been evaluated, or that the results of the eligibility checks are incorrect. A complaint can be made if the PIs and/or applicant legal entities consider that the assessment of the eligibility and/or evaluation of their proposal has not been carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in the Rules for Participation, the relevant work programme, call for proposals or the Rules for Submission. The evaluation review procedure is not meant to call into question the scientific judgement made by the peer review panel; it will look into procedural shortcomings and – in rare cases – into factual errors. The information letter will provide an electronic address to be used for the PIs and/or applicant legal entities. The letter will specify a deadline for the receipt of any such complaints, which will be 30 days from the date of receiving the ERCEA's information letter.
44
Complaints must be:
related to the peer review evaluation process, or eligibility checks, for the call and grants in question;
set out using the on-line form via the above-mentioned web-based mailing system, including a clear description of the grounds for complaint;
received within the time limit specified on the Call information letter;
sent by the PI and/or the PI’s host institution (as the applicant legal entity).
An acknowledgment of receipt will be sent to complainants no later than two weeks after the deadline for submitting the complaint. This acknowledgement of receipt will indicate when a definitive reply will be provided. A redress committee of the ERCEA may be convened to examine the eligibility checks and peer review evaluation process for the case in question. The redress committee will bring together staff of the ERCEA with the requisite scientific/technical and legal expertise. The committee’s role is to ensure a coherent interpretation of requests, and fair and equal treatment of applicants. The evaluation review committee itself, however, does not re-evaluate the proposal. Depending on the nature of the complaint, the committee may review the evaluation report, the individual comments and examine the CVs of the experts. In the light of its review, the committee will recommend a course of action to the ERCEA. If there is clear evidence of a shortcoming that could affect the eventual funding decision, it is possible that all or part of the proposal will be re-evaluated. Unless there is clear evidence of a shortcoming there will be no follow-up or re-evaluation. Please note:
A re-evaluation will only be carried out if there is evidence of a shortcoming that affects the quality assessment of a proposal. This means, for example, that a problem relating to one evaluation criterion will not lead to a re-evaluation if a proposal has failed anyway on the other criteria.
The evaluation score following any re-evaluation will be regarded as definitive. It may be lower than the original score.
Only one request for evaluation review per proposal will be considered by the committee.
All requests for evaluation review will be treated in confidence.
The above procedure does not prevent the applicants from resorting to any other means of seeking redress such as lodging an appeal to the Commission in accordance with Article 22 of Council Regulation 58/2003 (the request should be sent to
[email protected]), or filing an action for annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) before the Court of Justice of the European Union for a decision affecting a person or legal entity. PIs and applicant legal entities will have to choose either one or several of these means of redress, and they are not obliged to pursue one before another. Please be aware that you cannot take more than one formal action at a time. Thus, if you make, for instance, a request for eligibility review or evaluation review, you cannot — at the same time — take any other action. If you file an Article 22 request, you cannot — at the same time — bring an Article 263 TFEU action. You must wait for the final decision of Commission/Agency and can then take further action against that decision. All deadlines will start to run from when you receive the final decision.
45
2: Annexes
46
ANNEX 1: ERC PEER REVIEW EVALUATION PANELS (ERC PANELS) For the planning and operation of the evaluation of ERC grant proposals by panels, the following panel structure applies. There are 25 ERC panels to cover all fields of science, engineering and scholarship assigned to three research domains: Social Sciences and Humanities (6 Panels, SH1–SH6), Physical Sciences and Engineering (10 Panels, PE1–PE10) and Life Sciences (9 Panels, LS1–LS9). The panel names are accompanied by a list of ERC keywords indicating the fields of research covered by the respective ERC panels. The ERC keywords must always be read in the overall context of the panel's titles and sub-titles.
Social Sciences and Humanities SH1
Individuals, Markets and Organisations: Economics, finance and management SH1_1
Macroeconomics; monetary economics; economic growth
SH1_2
International trade; international business; international management; spatial economics
SH1_3
Development economics, health economics, education economics
SH1_4
Financial economics; banking; corporate finance; international finance; accounting; auditing; insurance
SH1_5
Labour and demographic economics; human resource management
SH1_6
Econometrics; operations research
SH1_7
Behavioural economics; experimental economics; neuro-economics
SH1_8
Microeconomics; game theory
SH1_9
Industrial organisation; strategy; entrepreneurship
SH1_10
Management; marketing; organisational behaviour; operations management
SH1_11
Technological change, innovation, research & development
SH1_12
Agricultural economics; energy economics; environmental economics
SH1_13
Public economics; political economics; law and economics
SH1_14
Quantitative economic history; institutional economics; economic systems
SH2 Institutions, Values, Environment and Space: Political science, law, sustainability science, geography, regional studies and planning SH2_1
Political systems, governance
SH2_2
Democratisation and social movements
SH2_3
Conflict resolution, war
SH2_4
Legal studies, constitutions, human rights, comparative law
SH2_5
International relations, global and transnational governance
SH2_6
Sustainability sciences, environment and resources
SH2_7
Environmental and climate change, societal impact and policy
SH2_8
Energy, transportation and mobility
SH2_9
Urban, regional and rural studies
SH2_10
Land use and regional planning
SH2_11
Human, economic and social geography
SH2_12
GIS, spatial analysis; big data in political, geographical and legal studies
SH3 The Social World, Diversity, Population: Sociology, social psychology, demography, education, communication SH3_1
Social structure, social mobility
SH3_2
Inequalities, discrimination, prejudice, aggression and violence, antisocial behaviour
SH3_3
Social integration, exclusion, prosocial behaviour
47
SH3_4
Attitudes and beliefs
SH3_5
Social influence; power and group behaviour; classroom management
SH3_6
Diversity and identities, gender, interethnic relations
SH3_7
Social policies, welfare
SH3_8
Population dynamics; households, family and fertility
SH3_9
Health, ageing and society
SH3_10
Social aspects of learning, curriculum studies, educational policies
SH3_11
Communication and information, networks, media
SH3_12
Digital social research
SH3_13
Science and technology studies
SH4 The Human Mind and Its Complexity: Cognitive science, psychology, linguistics, philosophy of mind SH4_1
Cognitive basis of human development and education, developmental disorders; comparative cognition
SH4_2
Personality and social cognition; emotion
SH4_3
Clinical and health psychology
SH4_4
Neuropsychology
SH4_5
Attention, perception, action, consciousness
SH4_6
Learning, memory; cognition in ageing
SH4_7
Reasoning, decision-making; intelligence
SH4_8
Language learning and processing (first and second languages)
SH4_9
Theoretical linguistics; computational linguistics
SH4_10
Language typology
SH4_11
Pragmatics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis
SH4_12
Philosophy of mind, philosophy of language
SH4_13
Philosophy of science, epistemology, logic
SH5 Cultures and Cultural Production: anthropology, study of the arts, philosophy
SH6
Literature,
philology,
SH5_1
Classics, ancient literature and art
SH5_2
Theory and history of literature, comparative literature
SH5_3
Philology and palaeography; historical linguistics
SH5_4
Visual and performing arts, film, design
SH5_5
Music and musicology; history of music
SH5_6
History of art and architecture, arts-based research
SH5_7
Museums, exhibitions, conservation and restoration
SH5_8
Cultural studies, cultural identities and memories, cultural heritage
SH5_9
Social anthropology, religious studies, symbolic representation
SH5_10
Metaphysics, philosophical anthropology; aesthetics
SH5_11
Ethics; social and political philosophy
SH5_12
History of philosophy
SH5_13
Computational Modelling and Digitisation in the Cultural Sphere
cultural
studies,
The Study of the Human Past: Archaeology and history SH6_1
Historiography, Theory and methods in history, including the analysis of digital data
SH6_2
Classical archaeology, history of archaeology
48
SH6_3
General archaeology, archaeometry, landscape archaeology
SH6_4
Prehistory, palaeoanthropology, palaeodemography, protohistory
SH6_5
Ancient history
SH6_6
Medieval history
SH6_7
Early modern history
SH6_8
Modern and contemporary history
SH6_9
Colonial and post-colonial history
SH6_10
Global history, transnational history, comparative history, entangled histories
SH6_11
Social and economic history
SH6_12
Gender history; Cultural History; History of Collective Identities and Memories
SH6_13
History of Ideas, Intellectual History, history of economic thought
SH6_14
History of Science, Medicine and Technologies
Physical Sciences and Engineering PE1
Mathematics: All areas of mathematics, pure and applied, plus mathematical foundations of computer science, mathematical physics and statistics
PE2
PE1_1
Logic and foundations
PE1_2
Algebra
PE1_3
Number theory
PE1_4
Algebraic and complex geometry
PE1_5
Geometry
PE1_6
Topology
PE1_7
Lie groups, Lie algebras
PE1_8
Analysis
PE1_9
Operator algebras and functional analysis
PE1_10
ODE and dynamical systems
PE1_11
Theoretical aspects of partial differential equations
PE1_12
Mathematical physics
PE1_13
Probability
PE1_14
Statistics
PE1_15
Discrete mathematics and combinatorics
PE1_16
Mathematical aspects of computer science
PE1_17
Numerical analysis
PE1_18
Scientific computing and data processing
PE1_19
Control theory and optimisation
PE1_20
Application of mathematics in sciences
PE1_21
Application of mathematics in industry and society
Fundamental Constituents of Matter: Particle, nuclear, plasma, atomic, molecular, gas,
and optical physics PE2_1
Fundamental interactions and fields
PE2_2
Particle physics
PE2_3
Nuclear physics
PE2_4
Nuclear astrophysics
PE2_5
Gas and plasma physics
PE2_6
Electromagnetism
49
PE3
PE2_7
Atomic, molecular physics
PE2_8
Ultra-cold atoms and molecules
PE2_9
Optics, non-linear optics and nano-optics
PE2_10
Quantum optics and quantum information
PE2_11
Lasers, ultra-short lasers and laser physics
PE2_12
Acoustics
PE2_13
Relativity
PE2_14
Thermodynamics
PE2_15
Non-linear physics
PE2_16
General physics
PE2_17
Metrology and measurement
PE2_18
Statistical physics (gases)
Condensed Matter Physics: Structure, electronic properties, fluids, nanosciences,
biophysics
PE4
PE3_1
Structure of solids and liquids
PE3_2
Mechanical and acoustical properties of condensed matter, Lattice dynamics
PE3_3
Transport properties of condensed matter
PE3_4
Electronic properties of materials, surfaces, interfaces, nanostructures, etc.
PE3_5
Semiconductors and insulators: material growth, physical properties
PE3_6
Macroscopic quantum phenomena: superconductivity, superfluidity, etc.
PE3_7
Spintronics
PE3_8
Magnetism and strongly correlated systems
PE3_9
Condensed matter – beam interactions (photons, electrons, etc.)
PE3_10
Nanophysics: nanoelectronics, nanophotonics, nanomagnetism, nanoelectromechanics, etc.
PE3_11
Mesoscopic physics
PE3_12
Molecular electronics
PE3_13
Structure and dynamics of disordered systems: soft matter (gels, colloids, liquid crystals, etc.), glasses, defects, etc.
PE3_14
Fluid dynamics (physics)
PE3_15
Statistical physics: phase transitions, noise and fluctuations, models of complex systems, etc.
PE3_16
Physics of biological systems
Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences: Analytical chemistry, chemical theory,
physical chemistry/chemical physics PE4_1
Physical chemistry
PE4_2
Spectroscopic and spectrometric techniques
PE4_3
Molecular architecture and Structure
PE4_4
Surface science and nanostructures
PE4_5
Analytical chemistry
PE4_6
Chemical physics
PE4_7
Chemical instrumentation
PE4_8
Electrochemistry, electrodialysis, microfluidics, sensors
PE4_9
Method development in chemistry
PE4_10
Heterogeneous catalysis
PE4_11
Physical chemistry of biological systems
50
PE4_12
Chemical reactions: mechanisms, dynamics, kinetics and catalytic reactions
PE4_13
Theoretical and computational chemistry
PE4_14
Radiation and Nuclear chemistry
PE4_15
Photochemistry
PE4_16
Corrosion
PE4_17
Characterisation methods of materials
PE4_18
Environment chemistry
PE5
Synthetic Chemistry and Materials: Materials synthesis, structure-properties relations, functional and advanced materials, molecular architecture, organic chemistry
PE6
PE5_1
Structural properties of materials
PE5_2
Solid state materials
PE5_3
Surface modification
PE5_4
Thin films
PE5_5
Ionic liquids
PE5_6
New materials: oxides, alloys, composite, organic-inorganic hybrid, nanoparticles
PE5_7
Biomaterials, biomaterials synthesis
PE5_8
Intelligent materials – self assembled materials
PE5_9
Coordination chemistry
PE5_10
Colloid chemistry
PE5_11
Biological chemistry
PE5_12
Chemistry of condensed matter
PE5_13
Homogeneous catalysis
PE5_14
Macromolecular chemistry
PE5_15
Polymer chemistry
PE5_16
Supramolecular chemistry
PE5_17
Organic chemistry
PE5_18
Molecular chemistry
PE5_19
Combinatorial chemistry
Computer Science and Informatics: Informatics and information systems, computer
science, scientific computing, intelligent systems PE6_1
Computer architecture, pervasive computing, ubiquitous computing
PE6_2
Computer systems, parallel/distributed systems, sensor networks, embedded systems, cyber-physical systems
PE6_3
Software engineering, operating systems, computer languages
PE6_4
Theoretical computer science, formal methods, and quantum computing
PE6_5
Cryptology, security, privacy, quantum crypto
PE6_6
Algorithms, distributed, parallel and network algorithms, algorithmic game theory
PE6_7
Artificial intelligence, intelligent systems, multi agent systems
PE6_8
Computer graphics, computer vision, multi media, computer games
PE6_9
Human computer interaction and interface, visualisation and natural language processing
PE6_10
Web and information systems, database systems, information retrieval and digital libraries, data fusion
PE6_11
Machine learning, statistical data processing and applications using signal
51
processing (e.g. speech, image, video)
PE7
PE6_12
Scientific computing, simulation and modelling tools
PE6_13
Bioinformatics, biocomputing, and DNA and molecular computation
Systems and Communication Engineering: Electrical, electronic, communication, optical
and systems engineering
PE8
PE7_1
Control engineering
PE7_2
Electrical engineering: power components and/or systems
PE7_3
Simulation engineering and modelling
PE7_4
(Micro and nano) systems engineering
PE7_5
(Micro and nano) electronic, optoelectronic and photonic components
PE7_6
Communication technology, high-frequency technology
PE7_7
Signal processing
PE7_8
Networks (communication networks, sensor networks, networks of robots, etc.)
PE7_9
Man-machine-interfaces
PE7_10
Robotics
PE7_11
Components and systems for applications (in e.g. medicine, biology, environment)
PE7_12
Electrical energy production, distribution, application
Products and Processes Engineering: Product design, process design and control,
construction methods, civil engineering, energy processes, material engineering PE8_1
Aerospace engineering
PE8_2
Chemical engineering, technical chemistry
PE8_3
Civil engineering, architecture, maritime/hydraulic engineering, geotechnics, waste treatment
PE9
PE8_4
Computational engineering
PE8_5
Fluid mechanics, hydraulic-, turbo-, and piston engines
PE8_6
Energy processes engineering
PE8_7
Mechanical and manufacturing engineering (shaping, mounting, joining, separation)
PE8_8
Materials engineering (biomaterials, metals, ceramics, polymers, composites, etc.)
PE8_9
Production technology, process engineering
PE8_10
Industrial design (product design, ergonomics, man-machine interfaces, etc.)
PE8_11
Sustainable design (for recycling, for environment, eco-design)
PE8_12
Lightweight construction, textile technology
PE8_13
Industrial bioengineering
Universe Sciences: Astro-physics/chemistry/biology; solar system; stellar, galactic and
extragalactic astronomy, planetary systems, cosmology, space science, instrumentation PE9_1
Solar and interplanetary physics
PE9_2
Planetary systems sciences
PE9_3
Interstellar medium
PE9_4
Formation of stars and planets
PE9_5
Astrobiology
PE9_6
Stars and stellar systems
PE9_7
The Galaxy
PE9_8
Formation and evolution of galaxies
PE9_9
Clusters of galaxies and large scale structures
PE9_10
High energy and particles astronomy – X-rays, cosmic rays, gamma rays, neutrinos
52
PE9_11
Relativistic astrophysics
PE9_12
Dark matter, dark energy
PE9_13
Gravitational astronomy
PE9_14
Cosmology
PE9_15
Space Sciences
PE9_16
Very large data bases: archiving, handling and analysis
PE9_17
Instrumentation - telescopes, detectors and techniques
PE10 Earth System Science: Physical geography, geology, geophysics, atmospheric sciences, oceanography, climatology, cryology, ecology, global environmental change, biogeochemical cycles, natural resources management PE10_1
Atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric composition, air pollution
PE10_2
Meteorology, atmospheric physics and dynamics
PE10_3
Climatology and climate change
PE10_4
Terrestrial ecology, land cover change
PE10_5
Geology, tectonics, volcanology
PE10_6
Palaeoclimatology, palaeoecology
PE10_7
Physics of earth's interior, seismology, volcanology
PE10_8
Oceanography (physical, chemical, biological, geological)
PE10_9
Biogeochemistry, biogeochemical cycles, environmental chemistry
PE10_10 Mineralogy, petrology, igneous petrology, metamorphic petrology PE10_11 Geochemistry, crystal chemistry, isotope geochemistry, thermodynamics PE10_12 Sedimentology, soil science, palaeontology, earth evolution PE10_13 Physical geography PE10_14 Earth observations from space/remote sensing PE10_15 Geomagnetism, palaeomagnetism PE10_16 Ozone, upper atmosphere, ionosphere PE10_17 Hydrology, water and soil pollution PE10_18 Cryosphere, dynamics of snow and ice cover, sea ice, permafrosts and ice sheets
Life Sciences LS1
Molecular and Structural Biology and Biochemistry: Molecular synthesis, modification
and interaction, biochemistry, biophysics, structural biology, metabolism, signal transduction LS1_1
Molecular interactions
LS1_2
General biochemistry and metabolism
LS1_3
DNA synthesis, modification, repair, recombination and degradation
LS1_4
RNA synthesis, processing, modification and degradation
LS1_5
Protein synthesis, modification and turnover
LS1_6
Lipid synthesis, modification and turnover
LS1_7
Carbohydrate synthesis, modification and turnover
LS1_8
Biophysics (e.g. transport mechanisms, bioenergetics, fluorescence)
LS1_9
Structural biology (crystallography and EM)
LS1_10
Structural biology (NMR)
LS1_11
Biochemistry and molecular mechanisms of signal transduction
53
LS2
Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology: Molecular and population
genetics, genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, bioinformatics, computational biology, biostatistics, biological modelling and simulation, systems biology, genetic epidemiology
LS3
LS2_1
Genomics, comparative genomics, functional genomics
LS2_2
Transcriptomics
LS2_3
Proteomics
LS2_4
Metabolomics
LS2_5
Glycomics
LS2_6
Molecular genetics, reverse genetics and RNAi
LS2_7
Quantitative genetics
LS2_8
Epigenetics and gene regulation
LS2_9
Genetic epidemiology
LS2_10
Bioinformatics
LS2_11
Computational biology
LS2_12
Biostatistics
LS2_13
Systems biology
LS2_14
Biological systems analysis, modelling and simulation
Cellular and Developmental Biology: Cell biology, cell physiology, signal transduction,
organogenesis, developmental genetics, pattern formation in plants and animals, stem cell biology LS3_1
Morphology and functional imaging of cells
LS3_2
Cell biology and molecular transport mechanisms
LS3_3
Cell cycle and division
LS3_4
Apoptosis
LS3_5
Cell differentiation, physiology and dynamics
LS3_6
Organelle biology
LS3_7
Cell signalling and cellular interactions
LS3_8
Signal transduction
LS3_9
Development, developmental genetics, pattern formation and embryology in animals
LS4
LS3_10
Development, developmental genetics, pattern formation and embryology in plants
LS3_11
Cell genetics
LS3_12
Stem cell biology
Physiology, Pathophysiology and Endocrinology: Organ physiology, pathophysiology,
endocrinology, metabolism, ageing, tumorigenesis, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome LS4_1
Organ physiology and pathophysiology
LS4_2
Comparative physiology and pathophysiology
LS4_3
Endocrinology
LS4_4
Ageing
LS4_5
Metabolism, biological basis of metabolism related disorders
LS4_6
Cancer and its biological basis
LS4_7
Cardiovascular diseases
LS4_8
Non-communicable diseases (except for neural/psychiatric, immunity-related, metabolism-related disorders, cancer and cardiovascular diseases)
54
LS5
Neurosciences and Neural Disorders: Neurobiology, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology,
neurochemistry, neuropharmacology, neuroimaging, systems neuroscience, neurological and psychiatric disorders LS5_1
Neuroanatomy and neurophysiology
LS5_2
Molecular and cellular neuroscience
LS5_3
Neurochemistry and neuropharmacology
LS5_4
Sensory systems (e.g. visual system, auditory system)
LS5_5
Mechanisms of pain
LS5_6
Developmental neurobiology
LS5_7
Cognition (e.g. learning, memory, emotions, speech)
LS5_8
Behavioural neuroscience (e.g. sleep, consciousness, handedness)
LS5_9
Systems neuroscience
LS5_10
Neuroimaging and computational neuroscience
LS5_11
Neurological disorders (e.g. Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease)
LS5_12
Psychiatric disorders (e.g. schizophrenia, autism, Tourette's syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder)
LS6
Immunity and Infection: The immune system and related disorders, infectious agents and diseases, prevention and treatment of infection LS6_1
Innate immunity and inflammation
LS6_2
Adaptive immunity
LS6_3
Phagocytosis and cellular immunity
LS6_4
Immunosignalling
LS6_5
Immunological memory and tolerance
LS6_6
Immunogenetics
LS6_7
Microbiology
LS6_8
Virology
LS6_9
Bacteriology
LS6_10
Parasitology
LS6_11
Prevention and treatment of infection by pathogens (e.g. vaccination, antibiotics, fungicide)
LS6_12
Biological basis of immunity related disorders (e.g. autoimmunity)
LS6_13
Veterinary medicine and infectious diseases in animals
LS7
Diagnostics, Therapies, Applied Medical Technology and Public Health: Aetiology, diagnosis and treatment of disease, public health, epidemiology, pharmacology, clinical medicine, regenerative medicine, medical ethics LS7_1
Medical engineering and technology
LS7_2
Imaging for medical diagnostics
LS7_3
Pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, drug discovery and design, drug therapy
LS7_4
Analgesia and Surgery
LS7_5
Toxicology
LS7_6
Gene therapy, cell therapy, regenerative medicine
LS7_7
Radiation therapy
LS7_8
Health services, health care research
55
LS8
LS7_9
Public health and epidemiology
LS7_10
Environment and health risks, occupational medicine
LS7_11
Medical ethics
Evolutionary, Population and Environmental Biology: Evolution, ecology, animal
behaviour, population biology, biodiversity, biogeography, marine biology, microbial ecology LS8_1
Ecology (theoretical and experimental; population, species and community level)
LS8_2
Population biology, population dynamics, population genetics
LS8_3
Systems evolution, biological adaptation, phylogenetics, systematics, comparative biology
LS8_4
Biodiversity, conservation biology, conservation genetics, invasion biology
LS8_5
Evolutionary biology: evolutionary ecology and genetics, co-evolution
LS8_6
Biogeography, macro-ecology
LS8_7
Animal behaviour
LS8_8
Environmental and marine biology l
LS8_9
Microbial ecology and evolution
LS8_10
Species interactions (e.g. food-webs, symbiosis, parasitism, mutualism)
LS9
Applied Life Sciences and Non-Medical Biotechnology: Applied plant and animal sciences; food sciences; forestry; industrial, environmental and non-medical biotechnologies, nanobiotechnology, bioengineering; synthetic and chemical biology; biomimetics; bioremediation LS9_1
Non-medical biotechnology and genetic engineering (including transgenic organisms, recombinant proteins, biosensors, bioreactors, microbiology)
LS9_2
Synthetic biology, chemical biology, bio-engineering and nanobiotechnology
LS9_3
Animal sciences (including animal husbandry, aquaculture, fisheries, animal welfare)
LS9_4
Plant sciences (including crop production, plant breeding, agroecology, soil biology)
LS9_5
Food sciences (including food technology, nutrition)
LS9_6
Forestry and biomass production (including biofuels)
LS9_7
Environmental biotechnology (including bioremediation, biodegradation)
LS9_8
Biomimetics
LS9_9
Biohazards (including biological containment, biosafety, biosecurity)
56
ANNEX 2: COMMITMENT OF THE HOST INSTITUTION (Print on paper bearing the official letterhead of the host institution)
Commitment of the host institution for ERC Calls 201742, 43, 44 The (please fill in here the name of the legal entity that is associated to the proposal and may host the principal investigator and the project in case the application is successful), which is the applicant legal entity, confirms its intention to sign a supplementary agreement with (please fill in here the name of the principal investigator) in which the obligations listed below will be addressed should the proposal entitled (acronym): (title of the proposal) be retained. Performance obligations of the applicant legal entity that will become the beneficiary of the H2020 ERC Grant Agreement (hereafter referred to as the Agreement), should the proposal be retained and the preparation of the Agreement be successfully concluded:
The applicant legal entity commits itself to hosting and engaging the principal investigator for the duration of the grant to: a)
ensure that the work will be performed under the scientific guidance of the principal investigator who is expected to devote: - in the case of a Starting Grant at least 50% of her/his total working time to the ERCfunded project (action) and spend at least 50% of her/his total working time in an EU Member State or associated country; - in the case of a Consolidator Grant at least 40% of her/his total working time to the ERC-funded project (action) and spend at least 50% of her/his total working time in an EU Member State or associated country;
42
A scanned copy of the signed statement should be uploaded electronically via the Participant Portal Submission Service in PDF format. 43 The statement of commitment of the host institution refers to most obligations of the host institution, which are stated in the ERC Model Grant Agreement (MGA). The ERC MGA is available on the participant portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/funding/reference_docs.html#h2020-mga-erc The reference to the time commitment of the Principal Investigator is stated in the ERC Work Programme 2017. 44 This statement (on letterhead paper) shall be signed by the institution's legal representative and stating his/her name, function, e-mail address and stamp of the institution.
57
- in the case of an Advanced Grant at least 30% of her/his total working time to the ERCfunded project (action) and spend at least 50% of her/his total working time in an EU Member State or associated country. b)
carry out the work to be performed, as it will be identified in Annex 1 of the Agreement, taking into consideration the specific role of the principal investigator;
c)
enter — before signature of the Agreement — into a ‘supplementary agreement’ with the principal investigator, that specifies the obligation of the applicant legal entity to meet its obligations under the Agreement;
d)
provide the principal investigator with a copy of the signed Agreement;
e)
guarantee the principal investigator's scientific independence, in particular for the: i)
use of the budget to achieve the scientific objectives;
ii) authority to publish as senior author and invite as co-authors those who have contributed substantially to the work; iii) preparation of scientific reports for the project (action); iv) selection and supervision of the other team members (hosted and engaged by the applicant legal entity or other legal entities), in line with the profiles needed to conduct the research and in accordance with the applicant legal entity’s usual management practices; v) possibility to apply independently for funding; vi) access to appropriate space and facilities for conducting the research; f)
provide — during the implementation of the project (action) — research support to the principal investigator and the team members (regarding infrastructure, equipment, access rights, products and other services necessary for conducting the research);
g)
support the principal investigator and provide administrative assistance, in particular for the: i)
general management of the work and his/her team
ii) scientific reporting, especially ensuring that the team members send their scientific results to the principal investigator; iii) financial reporting, especially providing timely and clear financial information; iv) application of the applicant legal entity’s usual management practices; v) general logistics of the project (action); vi) access to the electronic exchange system (see Article 52 of the Agreement); h)
inform the principal investigator immediately (in writing) of any events or circumstances likely to affect the Agreement (see Article 17 of the Agreement);
i)
ensure that the principal investigator enjoys adequate: i)
conditions for annual, sickness and parental leave;
58
ii) occupational health and safety standards; iii) insurance under the general social security scheme, such as pension rights; j)
allow the transfer of the Agreement to a new beneficiary (‘portability’; see Article 56a of the Agreement).
k)
take all measures to implement the principles set out in the Commission Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers45 - in particular regarding working conditions, transparent recruitment processes based on merit and career development – and ensure that the principal investigator, researchers and third parties involved in the project (action) are aware of them.
For the host institution (applicant legal entity)
Date ………………….
Name and Function …………………. ; ………………….
E-mail and Signature of legal representative …………………. ; …………………………….
Stamp of the host institution (applicant legal entity)
IMPORTANT NOTE: In order to be complete all the above mentioned items are mandatory and shall be included in the commitment of the host institution.
45
Commission Recommendation 2005/251/EC of 11 March 2005 on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (OJ L 75, 22.3.2005, p. 67).
59
ANNEX 3: PHD AND EQUIVALENT DOCTORAL DEGREES The ERC Policy on PhD and equivalent doctoral degrees as detailed in Annex 2 of the ERC Work Programme 2017 'ERC Policy on PhD and equivalent doctoral degrees'.
1. The necessity of ascertaining PhD equivalence In order to be eligible to apply to the ERC Starting or Consolidator Grant a Principal Investigator must have been awarded a PhD or equivalent doctoral degree. First-professional degrees will not be considered in themselves as PhD-equivalent, even if recipients carry the title "Doctor". See below for further guidelines on PhD degree equivalency. 2. PhD Degrees The research doctorate is the highest earned academic degree. It is always awarded for independent research at a professional level in either academic disciplines or professional fields. Regardless of the entry point, doctoral studies involve several stages of academic work. These may include the completion of preliminary course, seminar, and laboratory studies and/or the passing of a battery of written examinations. The PhD student selects an academic adviser and a subject for the dissertation, is assigned a dissertation committee, and designs his/her research (some educators call the doctoral thesis a dissertation to distinguish it from lesser theses). The dissertation committee consists usually of 3-5 faculty members in the student's research field, including the adviser. 3. Independent research Conducting the research and writing the dissertation usually requires one to several years depending upon the topic selected and the research work necessary to prepare the dissertation. In defending his/her thesis, the PhD candidate must establish mastery of the subject matter, explain and justify his or her research findings, and answer all questions put by the committee. A successful defence results in the award of the PhD degree. 4. Degrees equivalent to the PhD: It is recognised that there are some other doctoral titles that enjoy the same status and represent variants of the PhD in certain fields. All of them have similar content requirements. Potential applicants are invited to consult the following for useful references on degrees that will be considered equivalent to the PhD: -
46
47
EURYDICE: "Examinations, qualifications and titles - Second edition, Volume 1, European glossary on education" published in 200446. Please note that some titles that belong to the same category with doctoral degrees (ISCED 6 classification or ISCED 8 – 2011 classification47) may correspond to the intermediate steps towards the completion of doctoral education and they should not be therefore considered as PhD-equivalent.
http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/european-glossary-on-education-pbEC3212292/ http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf
60
-
List of research doctorate titles awarded in the United States that enjoy the same status and represent variants of the PhD within certain fields. These doctorate titles are also recognised as PhD-equivalent by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)48.
5. First Professional Degrees (for medical doctors please see below): It is important to recognise that the initial professional degrees in various fields are first degrees, not graduate research degrees. Several degree titles in such fields include the term "Doctor", but they are neither research doctorates nor equivalent to the PhD. 6. Medical Doctors (or applicants holding a degree in medicine): For medical doctors (or applicants holding a degree in medicine), a medical doctor degree will not be accepted by itself as equivalent to a PhD award. To be considered an eligible Principal Investigator, medical doctors (or applicants holding a degree in medicine) need to provide the certificates of both a medical doctor degree and a PhD or proof of an appointment that requires doctoral equivalency (e.g. post-doctoral fellowship, professorship appointment). Additionally, candidates must also provide information on their research experience (including peer reviewed publications) in order to further substantiate the equivalence of their overall training to a PhD. In these cases, the certified date of the medical doctor degree completion plus two years is the time reference for calculation of the eligibility time-window (i.e. 4 - 9 years past the medical doctor degree for Starters, and over 9 14 years past the medical doctor degree for Consolidators). For medical doctors who have been awarded both an MD and a PhD, the date of the earliest degree that makes the applicant eligible takes precedence in the calculation of the eligibility time-window (2 - 7 years after PhD or 4 - 9 years past the medical doctor degree for Starters, and over 7 - 12 years after PhD or 9 - 14 years past the medical doctor degree for Consolidators). _______________________________ Further explanation to the interpretation of point 6 For applicants holding both an MD and a PhD degree The MD degree takes precedence over the PhD degree only when the applicant has held an appointment that requires a doctoral equivalency (e.g. post-doctoral fellowship, professorship appointment) before the PhD award date. Proof of completion of clinical training will no longer make an MD applicant eligible. Clinical training will still count as a reason for extension of the eligibility window when taking place after the date of the MD award or the date of PhD award (depending on which is the earliest degree that makes the applicant eligible).
48
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-structure-us.html
61
Case 1 A Principal Investigator who was awarded an MD in 2002, completed clinical training in 2007 and then awarded a PhD on 1 January 2012, is eligible to apply for the Starting Grant call based on the award date of the PhD. As the MD by itself is not accepted as equivalent to a PhD award, the earliest eligible degree is the PhD – awarded 5 years prior to 1 January 2017 and within the eligibility window (2 – 7 years after PhD). Case 2 A Principal Investigator who was awarded an MD on 1 January 1998, completed clinical training in 2001 and held one or several research positions (e.g. post-doctoral fellowship or professorship appointment) prior to being awarded a PhD in 2011, is ineligible for both the Starting and Consolidator Grant call. The MD degree together with the research experience acquired during the research position(s) is considered equivalent to a PhD. Therefore, the earliest eligible degree is the MD – awarded 19 years prior to 1 January 2017 and not within the eligibility window (4 – 9 past MD for Starters and 9 – 14 years past MD for Consolidators).
62
ANNEX 4: SPECIFIC GUIDANCE RELATED TO ETHICS Ethics Self-Assessment Overview The aim of the ethics self-assessment is to provide guidance for discussion of the ethics issues involved in the proposal and how they will be dealt with.
How do you introduce, at the outset, the ethical perspective in your research?
Please provide a description of the ethics issues associated to your proposal, making sure you cover all topics flagged in the ethics issues table. Please specify as well any authorisation or permission you already have for the proposed work and include copies (the ethics self-assessment and the copies do not count towards the page limit of your proposal). All documents must be submitted in an official EU language or the original document together with a certified translation in English or another official EU language. Please list the documents provided with their expiry date. In case such documents are not available yet, please provide an approximate timing for their submission. This will allow a more effective ethics clearance and an accelerated granting process if the proposal is retained for possible funding. Human embryos/foetus Please make sure that you describe adequately why the use of human embryos/foetus is needed, the ethics issues associated to it and how you plan to deal with them and to conform to national legislation. Please note that research on human stem cells, both adult and embryonic, may be financed, depending both on the contents of the scientific proposal and the legal framework of the Member States involved. No funding shall be granted for research activities that are prohibited in all the Member States. No activity shall be funded in a Member State where such activity is forbidden. Any proposal for research on human embryonic stem cells shall include, as appropriate, details of licensing and control measures that will be taken by the competent authorities of the Member States as well as details of the ethics approvals that will be provided. As regards the derivation of human embryonic stem cells, institutions, organisations and researchers shall be subject to strict licensing and control in accordance with the legal framework of the Member States involved49. If your proposal involves the use of human embryos/foetus, including human embryonic stem cells (hESC), please provide the following information:
Confirm that the proposal does not include research activities which destroy embryos including for the procurement of stem cells;
49
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules for the participation and dissemination in 'Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)
63
Confirm that you have taken into account the legislation, regulations, ethics rules and/or codes of conduct in place in the country(ies) where the research is to take place, including the procedures for obtaining informed consent; Describe the origin of the human embryos/foetus/hESC; Describe the measures taken to protect personal data, including genetic data, and privacy; Describe the nature of financial inducements, if any.
If already available at this stage, please submit the national/local ethics approvals, information sheets and informed consent forms to cover the research on human embryos/foetus, including human embryonic stem cells (hESC). Please note that the funding of hESC proposals requires an additional approval procedure at EU level in accordance with Articles 10 and 12 of Decision 2013/743/EU establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020). Humans This category refers to any type of research involving empirical work with human beings, regardless of the scientific domain. Common to all fields, the main ethics issues concern the respect for persons and for human dignity, the just distribution of research's benefits and burden, the social value and the rights and interests of research participants, the need to ensure participants' free informed consent (with particular attention to vulnerable categories of individuals such as children, patients, discriminated people, minorities, persons unable to give consent, etc.). Research methodologies should not result in discriminatory practices or unfair treatment. When children and other persons unable to give consent are directly involved, their assent (besides parents or legal guardians' consent) should be elicited when feasible50. With regard to proposals in the field of social sciences and humanities, their peculiarity for what concerns ethics issues and requirements should be taken into consideration. Please specify what type of work with humans is involved (ex: interviews, observation, experiments with volunteers, and whether those include physical interventions), and discuss the ethical implications of the chosen methodologies. For instance, describe the sampling methods or recruitment procedures and discuss whether they may result in discriminatory practices. Assess whether the research topics or methodologies may entail any psychological, social, legal or other type of harm to participants. If due to the research context or methodology, standard written informed consent procedures are not applicable or advisable, please explain how you will ensure consent in a more appropriate way. The involvement of persons having personal or hierarchical links with the investigators should be avoided, or else the procedure to ensure real free and informed consent should be described (including students being awarded academic credits for participating in research projects). For guidance on how to deal with ethics issues in social research, see also: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89867/social-sciences-humanities_en.pdf With regard to medical studies, the Declaration of Helsinki51 sets the ethics framework for research, specifying the main principles for medical research (e.g. protection of life, health, dignity, integrity,
50
Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use – see articles 4 and 5. 51 WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
64
right to self-determination, privacy, and confidentiality of personal information of research subjects, protocols' design, role of research ethics committees, informed consent procedures, etc.). Moreover, projects funded under the EU research framework programmes have to comply with the principles enshrined in the Council of Europe Convention on human rights and biomedicine – known as the Bioethics Convention (Oviedo). Its main purpose is to protect individuals against exploitation arising out of treatment or research and it contains several detailed provisions on informed consent52. Regarding clinical trials, they must comply with the EU Directive on Clinical Trials53. Its purpose is to rationalise the procedure involving documentation and administration required for conducting clinical trials, and to ensure that patients are afforded the same protection in all EU Member States. On 17 July 2012, the Commission adopted a "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC)". On 14 April 2014, the Council of the European Union approved a draft regulation on clinical trials, which is expected to enter into force in 2016, and should also be taken into account. Please explain how your research will take into account the relevant ethical framework. Human cells/tissues Human cells and tissues used in the research should either be commercially available (please indicate the source) or, in case you produce them or they originate from another laboratory, you should demonstrate that their production is ethically authorised. If cells or tissues derive from clinical practice (e.g. operations), please make sure that donors have provided their informed consent to their use for research. If your research implies use of human cells/tissues collected in the framework of another research project, please provide the adequate authorisations to secondary use. Please specify if any material from existing biobanks will be used. Please specify if your project has the aim or effect to set up a biobank. Protection of personal data Please explain how you will ensure privacy and confidentiality in personal data collection and processing, in accordance with EU legislation, in particular: Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. However, the European legislation on data protection is evolving and the coming legislation should also be taken into consideration – (Reform of data protection legislation: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/) In case your research involves the collection/processing of sensitive personal data (health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction) or genetic information, please justify the need for their collection, discuss the possible ethics implications and how you will address them. 52
The article on the purpose and object of the Convention states that the Parties "shall protect the dignity and identity of all human beings and guarantee everyone, without discrimination, respect for their integrity and other rights and fundamental freedoms with regard to the application of biology and medicine". The Convention also concerns equitable access to health care, professional standards, protection of genetic heritage and scientific research. 53 Directive 2001/20/EC. The Clinical Trials Directive is concretised further by Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use.
65
In case your research involves tracking or observation of participants, please state whether any video or photo will be used publicly and describe the methods you will use to guarantee the privacy of the participants, including the informed consent provisions (if applicable). In case you are planning to use secondary data, please specify if these originate from publicly available sources, or, if not, whether the data has been authorised for secondary use (by primary owner of the data who must also confirm that the informed consent included the possibility of a secondary use of data). In any case, please describe in details the specificity of data collection, storage, protection, retention and destruction. Please provide as well an authorisation from the university data protection controller or national data protection authority. Regarding the transfer of personal data from/to non-EU countries, please refer to the chapter 'NonEU countries' below. Animals Animal welfare is a value of the Union (Article 13 of the TFEU). Animals have an intrinsic value which must be respected and they must be treated as sentient creatures. As a consequence, one of the main aims of the Directive 2010/63/EU is to improve the welfare of animals used in scientific procedures, taking into account that new scientific knowledge is available in respect of factors influencing animal welfare as well as the capacity of animals to sense and express pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm. According to the Directive, it is compulsory to carry out ethical review based on the principles of replacement, refinement, reduction (3Rs principle) and all breeders, suppliers, users and the experiments with animals must be authorised. Therefore, in addition to provide authorisations if already available, please elaborate on the need to use animals and the justification to this; consider whether your project has been designed so that procedures involving animals are carried out in the most humane and environmentally sensitive manner possible; make sure that the 3Rs principle will be adequately implemented; reflect on appropriateness of veterinary care and husbandry, impact on animals in terms of pain and distress (mention the anaesthesia and euthanasia methods if any); perform a harm-benefit analysis. Provide reference to compliance with relevant EU and national legislation, see in particular: Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes Non-EU countries International research raises several concerns, especially when they take place in developing or emerging–economy countries where participants may be more vulnerable due to economic or political reasons, and a significant disparity of power may exist between researchers and research participant. Thus, the researcher must ensure that he/she will comply with the relevant EU legislation in addition to the legislation of the host country. He/she should also comply with international reference documents, such as the Declaration of Helsinki. The researcher should also make sure – if applicable – that the benefits of the research are shared with relevant local actors. Therefore, if the host institution of the project is located in an Associated Country, please check the H2020 Online Manual and click on 'International cooperation' for up-to-date information on this topic, or if the project includes research activities taking place in a non-EU country, the PI must
66
provide a declaration that he/she will rigorously apply the ethical standards and guidelines of H2020, regardless of the country in which the research is carried out. In case work is foreseen in low or lower-middle income country(ies) according to OECD classification, an authorisation from local competent institutions (as appropriate) will be required. In case of exportation/importation of any materials outside/inside a non-EU country – including personal data - some additional documents are required, including an ethics approval/data protection authorisation, the local authorisation for export/import, and a Material Transfer Agreement. In addition to an authorisation from local competent institutions (as appropriate), in case of use of local resources (and especially animal and/or human tissue samples, genetic material, live animals, human remains, materials of historical value, endangered fauna or flora samples), please explain which resources are used, why and what measures are foreseen on this specific aspect for benefit sharing. Finally, if the situation in the country may put individuals taking part in the research at risk, please provide details on the foreseen security measures, including insurance cover. For further guidance, please see http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-fundingguide/cross-cutting-issues/ethics_en.htm Environmental protection and safety Some types of research may imply a risk for the safety of the environment or of the staff involved. Examples include studies on pathogen agents and virus, or experiments that may lead to the release of dangerous substances or particles in the air/water/soil or in the human body. If your research implies such risks, you are required to describe the foreseen security, health and safety measures, and their conformity with EU and national guidelines. See: Directive 2000/54/EC (on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work), Directives 2009/41/EC and 98/81/EC (on the contained use of genetically modified micro‐organisms – GMMs, and European Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research). If your research takes place in a protected area, please take into consideration the relevant Directives, namely Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) – specifically its Annex III ; Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ; Council directive 79/409 EEC on the conservation of wild birds. Malevolent use of research results Dual use specifically refers to technologies that can be used for both peaceful and military aims (See Regulation No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items). The technologies might present a danger to participants, or to society as a whole, if they were improperly disseminated and must be correctly identified, mentioning as well if they are defensive or offensive. In the bio-medical field, dual use refers for instance to research which may enhance the virulence of microorganisms causing diseases; diminish the immunity of the host; enhance the transmissibility of
67
the pathogens (enhance the contagiousness); alter (enlarge) the host range of the pathogen; render a vaccine ineffective; confer resistance to life-saving antibiotics; prevent diagnosis of infection or detection of a pathogen; enable eventual weaponisation, severity of disease/symptoms or mass casualty, see: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89888/ethics-for-researchers_en.pdf In case your research may fall under the mentioned categories, please provide details on the project and on the measures that you foresee to prevent/address/mitigate the risks they might raise. In general, potential misuse of research may be defined as “research involving or generating materials, methods or knowledge that could be misused for unethical purposes”. The main areas of concern regarding potential misuse are: research involving agents or equipment that could be directly misused for criminal or terrorist purposes; research which creates knowledge that could be used for criminal or terrorist purposes; research which can result in stigmatisation and discrimination; application and development of surveillance technologies; data mining and profiling technologies. Other ethics issues If any other ethically relevant issues apply to your project, please describe them here and explain how you address them.
68
ETHICS ISSUES TABLE - CHECKLIST Information and documents to be provided by the applicants (For information only – the list has to be filled in within the online application) 1. HUMAN EMBRYOS/FOETUSES Does your research involve Human Embryonic Stem Cells i (hESCs)? - Will they be directly derived from embryos within If YES: this project?
- Are they previously established cells lines?
Information to be provided
Documents to be provided
Research cannot be funded.
Research cannot be funded.
Origin and line of cells.
Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals.
Details on licensing and control measures by the competent authorities of the Member States involved.
Does your research involve the use of human embryos?
Does your research involve the use of human foetal tissues / cells?
Origin of embryos.
Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals.
Details on recruitment and informed consent procedures.
Informed Consent Forms.
Origin of human foetal tissues/cells.
Information Sheets. Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals.
Details on informed consent procedures.
Informed Consent Forms. Information Sheets.
69
2. HUMANS Does your research involve human participants?
If YES:
- Are they volunteers for social or human sciences research?
Information to be provided
Documents to be provided
Please provide information in one of the subcategories below:
Details on recruitment and informed consent procedures.
Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals. Informed Consent Forms.
- Are they persons unable to give informed consent?
Information above plus:
Information Sheets. Documents as above.
- Are they vulnerable individuals or groups?
Details on the procedures used to ensure that there is no coercion on participants. Details on the type of vulnerability.
Documents as above.
- Are they children/minors?
Details on recruitment and informed consent procedures. Information above plus:
Documents as above.
Details on the age range. Details on children/minors assent procedures.
- Are they patients?
Describe the procedures to ensure welfare of child/minor. Details on the nature of disease/condition/disability.
Documents as above.
- Are they healthy volunteers for medical studies?
Details on recruitment and informed consent procedures. Information above plus:
Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals.
Details on incidental findings. policy.
Does your research involve physical interventions on the study participants? If YES: - Does it involve invasive techniques? - Does it involve collection of biological samples?
Risk assessment. Details on the type of samples to be collected. Details on procedures for collection of biological samples.
70
Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals. Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals.
3. HUMAN CELLS / TISSUES Does your research involve human cells or tissues? (Other than from 'Human Embryos/Foetuses' i.e. section 1) - Are they available commercially? If YES: - Are they obtained within this project? - Are they obtained within another project? - Are they deposited in a biobank? ii
4. PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA Does your research involve personal data collection and/or processing? - Does it involve the collection and/or processing of If YES: sensitive personal data (e.g. health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction)?
- Does it involve processing of genetic information? - Does it involve tracking or observation of participants? Does your research involve further processing of previously collected personal data (secondary use)?
Information to be provided
Details on cell types and provider (company or other). Details on cell types. Details on cell types.
Documents to be provided
Details on cell types.
Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals. Authorisation by primary owner of cells/tissues (including references to ethics approval). Details on biobank and access to it.
Information to be provided
Documents to be provided
Details on protection of privacy/confidentiality.
Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals for the collection of personal data.
Details of procedures for data collection, storage, protection, retention, destruction or re-use. Explicit confirmation of compliance with national and EU legislation. Information as above. Information as above plus: Details on methods used for tracking or observing participants. Details of the database used or to the source of data. Confirmation of open public access to the data or of authorisation for secondary use.
Informed Consent Forms. Information Sheets.
Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals for the processing of genetic information. Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals for the collection of personal data. Document confirming open public access to the data (e.g. print screen from Website) or authorisation by primary owner of data Informed Consent Form (if applicable).
71
5. ANIMALS
iii
Does your research involve animals?
Information to be provided Confirmation of compliance with relevant EU and national legislation.
Documents to be provided Copies of all appropriate authorisations for the supply of animals and the project experiments.
Number of animals to be used, nature of the experiments, procedures, anticipated impact and how this will be minimised.
Copies of training certificates/ personal licences of the staff involved in animal experiments.
Details on species and rationale for their use. Details on procedures to ensure animal welfare.
If YES:
- Are they vertebrates?
Details on implementation of the 3Rs Principle. Information as above.
Documents as above.
- Are they non-human primates?
Information above plus:
Documents as above.
Confirmation of compliance with Art. 8, 10, 28, 31, 32 (Directive 2010/63/EU).
Personal history file (See art. 31 of Directive 2010/63/EU).
- Are they genetically modified?
iv
Discussion of specific ethics issues related to their use. Confirmation of compliance with relevant EU and national legislation.
Copies of all appropriate authorisations for the supply of animals and the project experiments.
Number of animals to be used, nature of the experiments, procedures, anticipated impact and how this will be minimised.
Copies of training certificates/ personal licences of the staff involved in animal experiments
Details on species and rationale for their use. Details on procedures to ensure animal welfare.
- Are they cloned farm animals?
Details on implementation of the 3Rs Principle. Information as above
Copies of all appropriate authorisations for the supply of animals and the project experiments. Copies of training certificates/ personal licences
72
of the staff involved in animal experiments.
- Are they endangered species?
Information as above plus:
Copies of specific authorisation for cloning. Copies of all appropriate authorisations for the supply of animals and the project experiments.
Confirmation of compliance with Art. 7 - Directive 2010/63/EU. Discussion of specific ethics issues related to their use.
6. THIRD COUNTRIES In case non-EU countries are involved, do the research related activities undertaken in these countries raise potential ethics issues?
If YES:
Copies of training certificates/ personal licences of the staff involved in animal experiments.
Information to be provided
Documents to be provided
Details on activities carried out in non-EU countries.
Signed declaration to confirm compliance with ethical standards and guidelines of H2020. Copies of relevant Ethics Approvals from EU country host and non-EU country (double ethics review, if possible).
- Specify the countries involved (maximum number of characters allowed: 1000) ________________________________________________________________
Do you plan to use local resources (e.g. animal and/or human tissue samples, genetic material, live animals, human remains, materials of historical value, endangered fauna or flora samples, etc.)?
Details on type of local resources to be used and modalities for their use.
In case of human resources, copies of relevant Ethics Approvals, as above.
Do you plan to import any material, including personal data, from non-EU countries into the EU?
Details on type of materials or data to be imported.
As above (use of local resources) and:
Details on type of materials or data to be
Authorisation for export from EU.
In case of animals, plants, micro-organisms and associated traditional knowledge, document showing compliance with Convention on Biodiversity (e.g. access permit and benefit sharing agreement)
Material Transfer Agreement (MTA).
If you consider importing data, please fill in section 4 on data protection. For imports concerning human cells or tissues, please fill in section 3. If YES:
- Specify material and countries involved (maximum number of characters allowed: 1000) ________________________________________________________________
Do you plan to export any material, including personal data, from the EU to
73
non-EU countries?
exported.
Material Transfer Agreement (MTA).
Details on benefit sharing measures.
As above (use of local resources) and narrative document describing benefit sharing, responsiveness to local research needs and capacity building.
If you consider exporting data, please fill in section 4 on data protection. For imports concerning human cells or tissues, please fill in section 3. - Specify material and countries involved (maximum number of characters If allowed: 1000) YES:
________________________________________________________________ 54
If your research involves low and/or lower middle income countries , are benefit-sharing measures planned?
Details on responsiveness to local research needs. Details on procedures to facilitate effective capacity building.
Details on safety measures to be implemented, including training.
Insurance cover
7. ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH AND SAFETY Does your research involve the use of elements that may cause harm to the environment, to animals or plants?
Information to be provided
Documents to be provided
Confirmation of compliance with national/local guidelines/legislation
Safety classification of laboratory.
For research involving animal experiments, please fill in also section 5.
Details on safety measures to be implemented.
Does your research deal with endangered fauna and/or flora and/or protected areas?
Confirmation of compliance with international/national/local 55 guidelines/legislation
Could the situation in the country put the individuals taking part in the research at risk? v vi vii
GMO authorisation, if applicable.
54
For a list of low and/or lower middle income countries, see: http://www.oecd.org/development/stats/49483614.pdf See, in particular: Directive 2008/56/EC; Council Directive 92/43/EEC; Council Directive 79/409/EEC Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 Council Decision 93/626/EEC 55
74
Specific approvals, if applicable.
For research involving human participants, please fill in also box 2. Does your research involve the use of elements that may cause harm to humans, including research staff?
Details on health and safety procedures.
University safety procedures.
Confirmation of compliance with national/local guidelines/legislation
Safety classification of laboratory.
8. DUAL USEi Does your research have the potential for military applications?
Information to be provided
Documents to be provided
9. MISUSE Does your research have the potential for malevolent/criminal/terrorist abuse?
Information to be provided
, viii
10. OTHER ETHICS ISSUES Are there any other ethics issues that should be taken into consideration?
Narrative document describing the potential dual use implications of the research.
Documents to be provided Narrative document describing the potential dual use implications of the research.
Information to be provided Any relevant information.
Documents to be provided Any relevant document.
Please specify: (maximum number of characters allowed: 1000) ______________________________________
I confirm that I have taken into account all ethics issues described above and that, if any ethics issues apply, I will complete the ethics self-assessment and attach the required documents. Council Decision 2002/628/EC.
75
i
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down the rules for the participation and dissemination in 'Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (20142020) ii
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data iii
DIRECTIVE 2010/63/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes DIRECTIVE 2009/41/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms and REGULATION (EC) No 1946/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms – see specifically its articles 4 to 11 and its annexes III to V v DIRECTIVE 2000/54/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 18 September 2000 - On the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work – see specifically its Chapter II and article 16 iv
vi
DIRECTIVE 2009/41/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms – see specifically its annex IV and REGULATION (EC) No 1946/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 July 2003 on transboundary movements of genetically modified organisms - – see specifically its articles 4 to 11 and its annexes III to V DIRECTIVE 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms COUNCIL DECISION 2002/628/EC: of 25 June 2002 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety COUNCIL DECISION 93/626/EEC of 25 October 1993 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on Biological Diversity vii
DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) – specifically its Annex III COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora Council directive 79/409 EEC on the conservation of wild birds and Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein viii
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items
76
